Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Framework for Output Based on Artificial Intelligence: Ukraine’s Place on the Global Search Path

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Competition and Intellectual Property Law in Ukraine

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 31))

Abstract

This chapter outlines the Ukrainian discussion on providing a legal framework for output based on artificial intelligence (AI) with a view to identifying its place and embedding it in the global debate. To this end, the author briefly sets out a common theoretical basis together with practical insights of copyrightability requirements under Ukrainian copyright law and then proceeds to examine output based on AI against them. This assessment reveals the particularities of scholarly approaches to treating such output in Ukraine and other jurisdictions. While the threshold of human involvement sufficient for a work to obtain copyright protection is yet to be clarified, the Ukrainian academic sector generally considers that Ukrainian copyright law does not protect a considerable part of output based on AI. Further, the more sophisticated AI systems in creative industries will become, the more output based on AI will be non-copyrightable. Under these circumstances, Ukrainian scholarly circles have actively embarked on a search for a legal framework for such output. The chapter offers an overview of ideas put forward in this regard and puts them in an international context. Particular attention is paid to the initiative on introducing a new sui generis right for non-original computer-generated objects as the only proposal that has so far made its way to the legislative initiative level. By shedding light on the Ukrainian ideas, the chapter shows the way for future considerations and perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Expert Committee on the Development of Artificial Intelligence under the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine http://ai.org.ua/index.html accessed 16 June 2022. The website disclaimer states that it is an unofficial test website that informally covers the work of the Committee.

  2. 2.

    Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the approval of the Concept for the development of artificial intelligence in Ukraine 2020, 1556-p.

  3. 3.

    Ukrainian Law on Stimulating the Development of the Digital Economy in Ukraine 2021, 1667-IX; Ukrainian Law on Amending the Tax Code of Ukraine and Other Ukrainian Laws to Stimulate the Development of the Digital Economy in Ukraine 2021, 1946-IX.

  4. 4.

    Diia.City https://city.diia.gov.ua/ accessed 17 June 2022.

  5. 5.

    Ukrainian Law on Stimulating the Development of the Digital Economy in Ukraine 2021, 1667-IX, art 5.

  6. 6.

    The following companies related to using, developing and/or promoting AI systems have already become Diia.City residents: Reface, Roosh, Deus Robots, etc. See Diia.City Registry https://city.diia.gov.ua/en/registry/resident accessed 17 June 2022, providing an open and free access registry of Diia.City residents.

  7. 7.

    Reface https://hey.reface.ai/ accessed 12 July 2022.

  8. 8.

    See Natasha Lomas, ‘Reface Grabs $5.5 M Seed Led by A16z to Stoke its Viral Face-Swap Video App’ TechCrunch (8 December 2020) https://tcrn.ch/33QdRAI accessed 12 July 2022.

  9. 9.

    Elai.io https://elai.io/ accessed 12 July 2022.

  10. 10.

    Harmix https://www.harmix.ai/ accessed 12 July 2022.

  11. 11.

    For the purposes of this chapter, output based on AI encompasses both AI-assisted and AI-generated output.

  12. 12.

    See P Bernt Hugenholtz and João P Quintais, ‘Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?’ (2021) 52 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 1190 (1201).

  13. 13.

    See Katherine B Forrest, ‘Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Issues’ in Theodore F Claypoole (ed), The Law of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Machines: Understanding A.I. and the Legal Impact (American Bar Association 2019) 347 (352); Nadia Banteka, ‘Artificially Intelligent Persons’ (2021) 58(3) Houston Law Review 537 (543); Warren E Agin, ‘A History of Artificial Intelligence’ in Theodore F Claypoole (ed), The Law of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Machines: Understanding A.I. and the Legal Impact (American Bar Association 2019) 3(23–24). See also See Anna Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A View from the Perspective of Copyright’ (2021) 16(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 720 (727); Kostiantyn Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (2021) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 25 (26). Regarding state-of-the-art of modern AI systems, Joseph Straus, ‘Artificial Intelligence—Challenges and Chances for Europe’ (2020) 29(1) European Review 142(143) also recognises their narrowness but at the same time considers that AI is approaching general human-level intelligence.

  14. 14.

    See Josef Drexl et al., ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law—Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate’, (2021) No. 21–10 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, para III (21).

  15. 15.

    See Olena Shtefan, ‘The Concept of the Object of Copyright and the Criteria for its Protection’ (2006) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 3 (3–4).

  16. 16.

    See Anna Shtefan, Copyright and Related Rights: Peculiarities of Legal Protection, Enforcement and Defence (Intellectual Property Research Institute of National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine, Ltd. NVP Interservice 2017) 11–12.

  17. 17.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, srt 1(1)(1). As the law does not have an official English version of its text, the author wishes to note that she is using its English translation from the Database “Laws of Ukraine” in this chapter.

  18. 18.

    Civil Code of Ukraine, art 435(1); Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 11(1)(2). See also Anna Shtefan, ‘Copyright and Its Exceptions and Limitations in Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  19. 19.

    Olha Kronda, ‘Application of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union in the Field of Intellectual Property’ (2018) 53 Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 105(106–107).

  20. 20.

    EU–Ukraine AA, arts 181, 187. See the authentic texts of the EU–Ukraine AA in all languages except Ukrainian.

  21. 21.

    EU–Ukraine AA, arts 181, 187. See the authentic text of the EU–Ukraine AA in Ukrainian.

  22. 22.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 7. In this case the author deviates from the translation of the law available at the Database “Laws of Ukraine” and provides her own to make the translation closer to the original text of the article. One further note should be taken of the fact that the law’s translation from the Database “Laws of Ukraine” uses the term “copyright holders” for subjects of copyright law. While this term is not a direct translation, it may better convey the meaning of the subject to a reader.

  23. 23.

    Civil Code of Ukraine, art 435; Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 11(1).

  24. 24.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 485.

  25. 25.

    Resolution of the Plenum of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases on the application of treaties of Ukraine by the courts in the administration of justice 2014, v0013740-14, para 6.

  26. 26.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 1(2)(a).

  27. 27.

    EU–Ukraine AA, preamble.

  28. 28.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts 31–33.

  29. 29.

    Parliament and Council Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (2009) OJ L111/16 (Computer Programs Directive), art 2(1).

  30. 30.

    Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (1996) OJ L77/20 (Database Directive), art 4(1).

  31. 31.

    Resolution of the Plenum of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases on the application of treaties of Ukraine by the courts in the administration of justice 2014, v0013740-14, para 6. Although the above rule is not enshrined in legislation and is derived from a source of judicial practice that was applicable prior to the judicial reform which became effective at the end of 2017, Ukrainian courts tend to continue following this rule. See Anna Shtefan, ‘Some Issues of Application of the Association Agreement as the Source of Copyright of Ukraine’ (2019) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 5 (9–10) writing about this rule in more detail. For an alternative view, see Anastasiia Kyrylenko, ‘Direct Effect in Ukraine of IPR Provisions from the EU–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement: A Principled Approach to the Zentiva case’ (2019) 14(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 716 (720), who, in addressing the direct effect of treaties in Ukraine, adds that the Resolution in question, which sets out the respective rules, is no longer considered as relevant to a commercial lawsuit by the Commercial Chamber of the Supreme Court.

  32. 32.

    Ukrainian Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court 75,399,206 (2018) 910/14972/17.

  33. 33.

    Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the approval of the procedure of the official translation of multilateral international treaties of Ukraine into Ukrainian 2006, 353.

  34. 34.

    See Shtefan, ‘Some Issues of Application of the Association Agreement as the Source of Copyright of Ukraine’ (n 31) 5 (12–13).

  35. 35.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, arts 9, 10(1)(e).

  36. 36.

    See Liubov Maidanyk, ‘The Concept of Originality of the Work in Copyright Law: Experience of the EU, Ukraine and Other Foreign Countries’ (2018) 10 Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law 32 (32).

  37. 37.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 1(1)(1).

  38. 38.

    The uncertainty comes, among other things, from the use of the term “originality” in relation to certain works and the term “creative efforts” in the definition of an author.

  39. 39.

    See Ilarion Tomarov, ‘Presumption of Works’ Originality: is There a Need for It or Not?’ LegalShift (22 March 2019) http://www.legalshift.com.ua/?p=1332 accessed 17 June 2022.

  40. 40.

    Ibid, arguing that “creative efforts” standard is concerned with evaluating the creativity of the process (the author’s efforts and probably intentions), while “originality” standard is aimed at evaluating the creativity of the result. By asking whether the author’s intentions matter if the result is original, and, conversely, whether the efforts matter if the result is non-original, he makes his view clear that originality is a characteristic of a work and not process. See also Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720 (721) who, in considering creativity in copyright law as a symbiosis of process and result, writes that the focus is still on the result. From a broader perspective, this discussion constitutes part of a global theoretical debate about subjective and objective standards of originality. See the outline of international debate in Tianxiang He, ‘The Sentimental Fools and the Fictitious Authors: Rethinking the Copyright Issues of AI-Generated Contents in China’ (2019) 27(2) Asia Pacific Law Review 218 (222–224).

  41. 41.

    Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552; Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1; Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-2; Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-4.

  42. 42.

    Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1, art 1(1)(41); Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1, art 1(1)(30).

  43. 43.

    The drafters were inspired by the studies of Friedrich Carl von Savigny in developing the modern Civil Code of Ukraine which took the pandect (or German) system as the basis of its structure. See Anatolii Dovgert, ‘The Doctrine of Private International Law in Ukraine at the Turn of the Century’ (2020) 6 Law of Ukraine 13 (33–34).

  44. 44.

    While judicial practice of the courts of first and appellate instances may be illustrative for understanding the prospects of a case at the relevant stages, judicial practice derived from the conclusions on the application of legal norms set forth in rulings of the Supreme Court is of the most importance. This is due to the legislative provisions according to which such conclusions shall be taken into account by other courts when applying such legal norms as well as shall be binding on all power holders which apply in their activities a regulatory act containing the relevant legal norm. See Ukrainian Law on the Judiciary and the Status of Judges 2016, 1402-VIII, art 13(5), (6).

  45. 45.

    See Maidanyk, ‘The Concept of Originality of the Work in Copyright Law’ (n 36) 32 (33).

  46. 46.

    Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine on some issues of dispute resolution practice related to the protection of intellectual property rights 2012, v0012600-12, para 25; Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the application of the legislation on copyright and related rights by the courts 2010, v0005700-10, para 18.

  47. 47.

    Although there is no requirement for copyright registration, the registration procedure is quite popular among those wishing to abuse the rights and those wishing to protect themselves against such abuses in the future, because the registration gives a person an evidentiary advantage in the event of a legal dispute. See Oleksandra Javorska, ‘Presumption of Creative Nature of the Work, Resulted in the Object of Intellectual Property Law: Theory and Practice of Application’ (2017) 23 Časopis civìlìstiki 78 (79). See also Anna Shtefan, ‘Copyright and Its Exceptions and Limitations in Ukraine’ in this Volume briefly describing how the presumption of originality serves as a source of a lot of abuse.

  48. 48.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 3.

  49. 49.

    See Liubov Maidanyk, ‘Notion and Boundaries of Objective Form of Expression of a Work: Analyze of European and Ukrainian Approaches’ (2019) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 94 (94).

  50. 50.

    See Shtefan (n 16) 12, 46.

  51. 51.

    Ukrainian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 1994, 3792-XII, art 8.

  52. 52.

    See Maidanyk, ‘Notion and Boundaries of Objective Form of Expression of a Work’ (n 49) 94 (95).

  53. 53.

    See Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720 (720).

  54. 54.

    See Stefan Scheuerer, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Unfair Competition—Unveiling an Underestimated Building Block of the AI Regulation Landscape’ (2021) 70(9) GRUR International 834 (837).

  55. 55.

    Scientific and methodological recommendations on the preparation and appointment of forensic examinations and expert studies approved by the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine 1998, 53/5, para 5.5.

  56. 56.

    See Grygorii Prokhorov-Lukin, ‘Forensics: The Concept and Types of Intellectual Property’ (2016) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 17 (20–21).

  57. 57.

    See Jane C Ginsburg, ‘People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention’ (2018) 49 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 131; Hugenholtz and Quintais, ‘Copyright and Artificial Creation’ (n 12) 1190 (1195); Sam Ricketson, ‘The 1992 Horace S. Manges Lecture—People or Machines: The Bern Convention and the Changing Concept of Authorship’ (1991–1992) 16 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the art 1 (8, 10–11); Sean D Kelly, ‘What Computers Can’t Create: Why Creativity is, and Always Will Be, a Human Endeavor’ Technology Review, Inc. (1 March 2019) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+computers+can%27t+create%3a+Why+creativity+is%2c+and+always+will+be%2c+a...-a0578441401 accessed 7 July 2022. See also Maidanyk, ‘The Concept of Originality of the Work in Copyright Law’ (n 36) 32 (35); Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720(726); Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (28).

  58. 58.

    See Josef Drexl et al., ‘Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective’, (2019) No. 19–13 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Q6–Q9, providing an overview of AI with a special focus on machine learning and arriving at the conclusion that machine learning models are not autonomous. See also Eliza Mik, ‘AI as a Legal Person’ in Jyh-An Lee et al. (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 419 (423–426) treating autonomy in technical context as an advanced form of automation.

  59. 59.

    See James Grimmelmannn, ‘There's No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work—And It’s a Good Thing, Too’ (2016) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the arts 403 (407) arguing that computers have influenced the speed of operations making “some kinds of creativity practically feasible, but they do not make anything newly possible”.

  60. 60.

    See Drexl and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law’ (n 14), para III(21); Hugenholtz and Quintais, ‘Copyright and Artificial Creation’ (n 12) 1190 (1201).

  61. 61.

    See Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720 (727–728).

  62. 62.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (28).

  63. 63.

    Ibid 29.

  64. 64.

    See Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720 (727–728); Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (29–30).

  65. 65.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (30).

  66. 66.

    For an alternative view, see Kelly, Technology Review, Inc. (n 57) accessed 7 July 2022; Martin Senftleben, ‘A Tax on Machines for the Purpose of Giving a Bounty to the Dethroned Human Author—Towards an AI Levy for the Substitution of Human Literary and Artistic Works’ SSRN. See also Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence’ (n 13) 720 (720) arguing that these types of output cannot be equated with each other.

  67. 67.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (28–29). By referring to the capability of AI systems to generate all possible options within the set parameters, Zerov is likely referring to the example given by Jesus M N Zatarain, ‘The Role of Automated Technology in the Creation of Copyright Works: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence’ (2017) 31(1) International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 91 (91–93). Zatarian provides the example of Qentis, a company which has generated and deployed 97.42% of all possible texts of ten to four hundred words in length.

  68. 68.

    See Ibid 29–30; Maidanyk, ‘The Concept of Originality of the Work in Copyright Law’ (n 36) 32 (35).

  69. 69.

    For the debate on the regime, see Andres Guadamuz, ‘Comparative Analysis of Originality in Artificial Intelligence Generated Works’ in Jyh-An Lee et al. (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 147; Jani McCutcheon, ‘The Vanishing Author in Computer-Generated Works: A Critical Analysis of Recent Australian Case Law’ (2013) 36 Melbourne University Law Review 915; Jani McCutcheon, ‘Curing the Authorless Void: Protecting Computer-Generated Works Following IceTV and Phone Directories’ (2013) 37 Melbourne University Law Review 46; Jyh-An Lee, ‘Computer-generated Works Under the CDPA 1988’ in Jyh-An Lee et al. (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 177.

  70. 70.

    See Kalin Hristov, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma’ (2017) 57(3) IDEA: The IP Law Review 431; Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, ‘Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era—The Human-Like Authors Are Already Here—A New Model’ (2017) 2017 Michigan State Law Review 659.

  71. 71.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (31). See also Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Texts, Music, Images, That are Generated by Artificial Intelligence: Towards Defining a Model of Legal Protection’ (2021) 36 Information and Law 45 (51).

  72. 72.

    See Mykola Stefanchuk et al., ‘Prospects of Legal Regulation of Relations in the Field of Artificial Intelligence Use’ (2021) 28(1) Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 157 (164).

  73. 73.

    Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the establishment of the Working group on recodifying (updating) Ukrainian civil legislation 2019, 650.

  74. 74.

    See Anatolii Dovgert et al., ‘Codification of Civil Legislation: At the Turn of the Era’ (2021) 10 Global Journal of Comparative Law 16 (22–27).

  75. 75.

    Working Group on Recodifying (Updating) Ukrainian Civil Legislation, ‘Concept of Updating the Civil Code of Ukraine’ ArtEk 2020, book 1(III) (1.12) 2020.

  76. 76.

    See Mariia Dubniak, ‘Problems in Determining the Legal Regime for Objects Generated Using Neural Network Technologies’ (2019) 31 Information and Law 45 (51–52).

  77. 77.

    See Kapitsa, ‘Texts, Music, Images, That are Generated by Artificial Intelligence’ (n 71) 45 (52).

  78. 78.

    See Senftleben, ‘A Tax on Machines for the Purpose of Giving a Bounty to the Dethroned Human Author—Towards an AI Levy for the Substitution of Human Literary and Artistic Works’ (n 66).

  79. 79.

    See Scheuerer, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Unfair Competition’ (n 54) 834 (844).

  80. 80.

    See Jan Smits and Tijn Borghuis, ‘Generative AI and Intellectual Property Rights’ in Bart Custers and Eduard Fosch-Villaronga (eds), Law and Artificial Intelligence (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2022) 323(336–337) supposing that “there is no clear economic rationale for granting copyright or related rights protection to AI outputs”.

  81. 81.

    See Yuriy Kapitsa, Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  82. 82.

    See Anastasiia Kyrylenko, ‘The Reformed Design Law in Ukraine: What is Right with EU Trade Agreements?’ in this Volume.

  83. 83.

    See Anastasiia Kyrylenko, ‘The Reformed Design Law in Ukraine: What is Right with EU Trade Agreements?’ and Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  84. 84.

    Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the approval of the conceptual foundation for reforming the state system of intellectual property protection of Ukraine 2016, 402-p.

  85. 85.

    See Anna Shtefan, ‘Copyright and Its Exceptions and Limitations in Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  86. 86.

    Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1; Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-2; Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-4.

  87. 87.

    For example, the draft laws use different terms—“generation” and “creation”—to refer to the functioning of a computer programme, resulting in non-original CGOs.

  88. 88.

    See Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on adopting the Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights as a basis 2022, 2335-IX approving the Principal Draft Law as a basis and instructing that it should be refined by the second reading, taking the suggestions and amendments into account.

  89. 89.

    While Draft Law 5552-2 also uses the mentioned wording, Draft Law 5552-4 defines non-original CGOs by distinguishing them from the “existing objects” without using the term “similar”.

  90. 90.

    Both Draft Law 5552-1 (Principal Draft Law) and Draft Law 5552-4 envisage that the sui generis right is effective from the act of generation. However, they stipulate different provisions for the calculation of 25 years. According to Draft Law 5552-4, the term commences on the first of January of the year following the year when the non-original CGO was generated. The Principal Draft Law probably contains a misprint in this regard. It provides that the term expires on the last day of the calendar year when the non-original CGO was generated. Apparently, the drafters were referring to the last day of the calendar year in 25 years. We believe this misprint will be corrected during the finalisation of the Principal Draft Law.

  91. 91.

    World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence—Summary of the First Session’ WIPO 2019, WIPO/IP/AI/GE/19, 2019, para 81;

    World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence—Summary of the Second and Third Sessions’ WIPO 2020, WIPO/IP/AI/3/GE/20/INF/5, 2020, para 37.

  92. 92.

    See Liubov Maidanyk, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Sui Generis Right: A Perspective for Copyright in Ukraine?’ (2021) 3(11) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 144 (150–151).

  93. 93.

    See Reto M Hilty et al., ‘Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence’ in Jyh-An Lee et al. (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 50 (50).

  94. 94.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (32).

  95. 95.

    See Reto M Hilty et al., ‘Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence’ in Jyh-An Lee et al. (n 93) 50 (64–68).

  96. 96.

    See Drexl and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (n 14), para III (22).

  97. 97.

    Explanatory Note to Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1; Explanatory Note to Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-2; Explanatory Note to Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-4.

  98. 98.

    See Maidanyk, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Sui Generis Right’ (n 92) 144 (151); Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (30–32).

  99. 99.

    Apart from CGOs, the Draft Law also contains provisions on the sui generis rights as regards databases and intangible cultural heritage.

  100. 100.

    Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-1, preamble.

  101. 101.

    Comparative Table to Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-4.

  102. 102.

    Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552-4, preamble.

  103. 103.

    See Maidanyk, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Sui Generis Right’ (n 92) 144 (153).

  104. 104.

    See Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (33).

  105. 105.

    See Kapitsa, ‘Texts, Music, Images, That are Generated by Artificial Intelligence’ (n 71) 45 (48–50); Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (n 13) 25 (32).

  106. 106.

    See Drexl and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (n 14), para III (23) summarising that the database sui generis regime needs to be adjusted or—even better—abolished altogether. See also Josef Drexl et al., ‘Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 May 2022 on the Commission’s Proposal of 23 February 2022 for a Regulation on Harmonised Rules on Fair Access to and Use of Data (Data Act)’ (2022) No. 20–05 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, paras 254–266 on limiting the sui generis database right. The importance of conducting such a sober analysis is underscored by the fact that Ukrainian copyright reform also involves updating provisions on the sui generis database right via introducing rules that have been inspired by the EU sui generis database regime. Current Ukrainian law only mentions sui generis database right without providing the rules on it.

  107. 107.

    European Commission, ‘Making the Most of the EU’s Innovative Potential—An Intellectual Property Action Plan to Support the EU’s Recovery and Resilience’ (Communication) COM(2020) 760 final, 7.

  108. 108.

    European Commission, ‘Study on Copyright and New Technologies: Copyright Data Management and Artificial Intelligence’ (Study) SMART 2019/0038, 274.

  109. 109.

    See Maidanyk, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Sui Generis Right’ (n 92) 144(153).

References

  • Warren E Agin, ‘A History of Artificial Intelligence’ in Theodore F Claypoole (ed), The Law of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Machines: Understanding A.I. and the Legal Impact (American Bar Association 2019) 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadia Banteka, ‘Artificially Intelligent Persons’ (2021) 58(3) Houston Law Review 537

    Google Scholar 

  • Anatolii Dovgert, Viktor Kalakura and Nataliia Vasylyna, ‘Codification of Civil Legislation: At the Turn of the Era’ (2021) 10 Global Journal of Comparative Law 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Anatolii Dovgert, ‘The Doctrine of Private International Law in Ukraine at the Turn of the Century’ (2020) 6 Law of Ukraine 13 [Aнaтoлiй Дoвгepт, ‘Дoктpинa Miжнapoднoгo Пpивaтнoгo Пpaвa в Укpaїнi нa Злaмi Cтoлiть’ (2020) 6 Пpaвo Укpaїни 13]

    Google Scholar 

  • Josef Drexl and others, ‘Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 May 2022 on the Commission’s Proposal of 23 February 2022 for a Regulation on Harmonised Rules on Fair Access to and Use of Data (Data Act)’ (2022) No. 20–05 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

    Google Scholar 

  • Josef Drexl and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law—Christopher Rowland,Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate’, (2021) No. 21–10 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

    Google Scholar 

  • Josef Drexl and others, ‘Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective’, (2019) No. 19–13 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariia Dubniak, ‘Problems in Determining the Legal Regime for Objects Generated Using Neural Network Technologies’ (2019) 31 Information and Law 45 [Mapiя Дyбняк, ‘Пpoблeми Bизнaчeння Пpaвoвoгo Peжимy Oб’єктiв, Cтвopeниx зa Дoпoмoгoю Texнoлoгiй Heйpoмepeж’ (2019) 31 Iнфopмaцiя i Пpaвo 45]

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Making the Most of the EU’s Innovative Potential—An Intellectual Property Action Plan to Support the EU’s Recovery and Resilience’ (Communication) COM(2020) 760 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Study on Copyright and New Technologies: Copyright Data Management and Artificial Intelligence’ (Study) SMART 2019/0038

    Google Scholar 

  • Katherine B Forrest, ‘Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Issues’ in Theodore F Claypoole (ed), The Law of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Machines: Understanding A.I. and the Legal Impact (American Bar Association 2019) 347

    Google Scholar 

  • Jane C Ginsburg, ‘People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention’ (2018) 49 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 131

    Google Scholar 

  • James Grimmelmannn, ‘There's No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work—And It’s a Good Thing, Too’ (2016) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 403

    Google Scholar 

  • Andres Guadamuz, ‘Comparative Analysis of Originality in Artificial Intelligence Generated Works’ in Jyh-An Lee, Reto M Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 147

    Google Scholar 

  • Tianxiang He, ‘The Sentimental Fools and the Fictitious Authors: Rethinking the Copyright Issues of AI-generated Contents in China’ (2019) 27(2) Asia Pacific Law Review 218

    Google Scholar 

  • Reto M Hilty, Jörg Hoffmann and Stefan Scheuerer, ‘Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence’ in Jyh-An Lee, Reto M Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalin Hristov, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma’ (2017) 57(3) IDEA: The IP Law Review 431

    Google Scholar 

  • P Bernt Hugenholtz and João P Quintais, ‘Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?’ (2021) 52 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleksandra Javorska, ‘Presumption of Creative Nature of the Work, Resulted in the Object of Intellectual Property Law: Theory and Practice of Application’ (2017) 23 Časopis civìlìstiki 78 [Oлeкcaндpa Явopcькa, ‘Пpeзyмпцiя Tвopчoгo Xapaктepy Пpaцi, Peзyльтaтoм якoї є Oб’єкт Iнтeлeктyaльнoгo Пpaвa: Teopiя тa Пpaктикa Зacтocyвaння’ (2017) 23 Чacoпиc Цивiлicтики 78]

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Texts, Music, Images, That are Generated by Artificial Intelligence: Towards Defining a Model of Legal Protection’ (2021) 36 Information and Law 45 [Юpiй Кaпiцa, ‘Teкcти, Myзикa, Зoбpaжeння, щo Cтвopюютьcя Штyчним Iнтeлeктoм: дo Bизнaчeння Moдeлi Пpaвoвoї Oxopoни’ (2021) 36 Iнфopмaцiя i Пpaвo 45]

    Google Scholar 

  • Sean D Kelly, ‘What Computers Can't Create: Why Creativity is, and Always Will Be, a Human Endeavor’ Technology Review, Inc. (1 March 2019) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+computers+can%27t+create%3a+Why+creativity+is%2c+and+always+will+be%2c+a...-a0578441401

  • Olha Kronda, ‘Application of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union in the Field of Intellectual Property’ (2018) 53 Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 105 [Oльгa Кpoндa ‘Зacтocyвaння Угoди пpo Acoцiaцiю мiж Укpaїнoю тa Євpoпeйcьким Coюзoм y Cфepi Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi’ (2018) 53 Hayкoвий Вicник Ужгopoдcькoгo Нaцioнaльнoгo Унiвepcитeтy. Cepiя: Пpaвo 105]

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasiia Kyrylenko, ‘Direct Effect in Ukraine of IPR Provisions from the EU–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement: A Principled Approach to the Zentiva Case’ (2019) 14(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 716

    Google Scholar 

  • Jyh-An Lee, ‘Computer-generated Works Under the CDPA 1988’ in Jyh-An Lee, Reto M Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 177

    Google Scholar 

  • Natasha Lomas, ‘Reface Grabs $5.5M Seed Led by A16z to Stoke its Viral Face-Swap Video App’ TechCrunch (8 December 2020) https://tcrn.ch/33QdRAI

  • Liubov Maidanyk, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Sui Generis Right: A Perspective for Copyright in Ukraine?’ (2021) 3(11) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 144

    Google Scholar 

  • Liubov Maidanyk, ‘Notion and Boundaries of Objective Form of Expression of a Work: Analyze of European and Ukrainian Approaches’ (2019) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 94 [Любoв Maйдaник, ‘Пoняття тa Meжi Oб’єктивнoї Фopми Bиpaжeння Tвopy: Aнaлiз Євpoпeйcькoгo тa Укpaїнcькoгo Пiдxoдiв’ (2019) 1 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 94]

    Google Scholar 

  • Liubov Maidanyk, ‘The Concept of Originality of the Work in Copyright Law: Experience of the EU, Ukraine and Other Foreign Countries’ (2018) 10 Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law 32 [Любoв Maйдaник, ‘Пoняття Opигiнaльнocтi Tвopy в Aвтopcькoмy Пpaвi: Дocвiд ЄC, Укpaїни тa Iншиx Зapyбiжниx Кpaїн’ (2018) 10 Пiдпpиємництвo, гocпoдapcтвo i пpaвo 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • Jani McCutcheon, ‘Curing the Authorless Void: Protecting Computer-Generated Works Following IceTV and Phone Directories’ (2013) 37 Melbourne Univeristy Law Review 46

    Google Scholar 

  • Jani McCutcheon, ‘The Vanishing Author in Computer-Generated Works: A Critical Analysis of Recent Australian Case Law’ (2013) 36 Melbourne Univeristy Law Review 915

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliza Mik, ‘AI as a Legal Person’ in Jyh-An Lee, Reto M Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2021) 419

    Google Scholar 

  • Grygorii Prokhorov-Lukin, ‘Forensics: The Concept and Types of Intellectual Property’ (2016) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 17 [Гpигopiй Пpoxopoв-Лyкiн, ‘Cyдoвa Eкcпepтизa: Пoняття тa Bиди Oб’єктiв Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi’ (2016) 6 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 17]

    Google Scholar 

  • Sam Ricketson, ‘The 1992 Horace S. Manges Lecture – People or Machines: The Bern Convention and the Changing Concept of Authorship’ (1991–1992) 16 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefan Scheuerer, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Unfair Competition—Unveiling an Underestimated Building Block of the AI Regulation Landscape’ (2021) 70(9) GRUR International 834

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Senftleben, ‘A Tax on Machines for the Purpose of Giving a Bounty to the Dethroned Human Author—Towards an AI Levy for the Substitution of Human Literary and Artistic Works’ SSRN (2 Jun 2022) https://ssrn.com/abstract=4123309

  • Anna Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A View from the Perspective of Copyright’ (2021) 16(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 720

    Google Scholar 

  • Anna Shtefan, ‘Some Issues of Application of the Association Agreement as the Source of Copyright of Ukraine’ (2019) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 5 [Aннa Штeфaн, ‘Дeякi Пpoблeми Зacтocyвaння Угoди пpo Acoцiaцiю як Джepeлa Aвтopcькoгo Пpaвa Укpaїни’ (2019) 1 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 5]

    Google Scholar 

  • Anna Shtefan, Copyright and Related Rights: Peculiarities of Legal Protection, Enforcement and Defence (Intellectual Property Research Institute of National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine, Ltd NVP Interservice 2017) [Aннa Штeфaн, Aвтopcькe Пpaвo i Сyмiжнi Пpaвa: Оcoбливocтi Пpaвoвoї Оxopoни, Здiйcнeння тa Зaxиcтy (HДI Інтeлeктyaльнoї Влacнocтi HAПpHУ, TOB HBП Iнтepcepвic 2017)]

    Google Scholar 

  • Olena Shtefan, ‘The Concept of the Object of Copyright and the Criteria for its Protection’ (2006) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 3 [Oлeнa Штeфaн, ‘Пoняття Oб’єктy Aвтopcькoгo Пpaвa тa Кpитepiїв йoгo Oxopoнoздaтнocтi’ (2006) 6 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 3]

    Google Scholar 

  • Jan Smits and Tijn Borghuis, ‘Generative AI and Intellectual Property Rights’ in Bart Custers and Eduard Fosch-Villaronga (eds), Law and Artificial Intelligence (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2022) 323

    Google Scholar 

  • Mykola Stefanchuk, Oksana Muzyka-Stefanchuk and Maryna Stefanchuk, ‘Prospects of Legal Regulation of Relations in the Field of Artificial Intelligence Use’ (2021) 28(1) Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 157

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph Straus, ‘Artificial Intelligence—Challenges and Chances for Europe’ (2020) 29(1) European Review 142

    Google Scholar 

  • The Expert Committee on the Development of Artificial Intelligence under the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine http://ai.org.ua/index.html

  • Ilarion Tomarov, ‘Presumption of Works’ Originality: is There a Need for It or Not?’ LegalShift (22 March 2019) http://www.legalshift.com.ua/?p=1332 [Iлapioн Toмapoв, ‘Пpeзyмпцiя Opигiнaльнocтi Tвopy: Пoтpiбнa чи Hi?’ LegalShift (22 бepeзня 2019)]

  • Working Group on Recodifying (Updating) Ukrainian Civil Legislation, ‘Concept of Updating the Civil Code of Ukraine’ (ArtEk 2020) [Poбoчa Гpyпa щoдo Рeкoдифiкaцiї (Онoвлeння) Цивiльнoгo Зaкoнoдaвcтвa Укpaїни, ‘Кoнцeпцiя Oнoвлeння Цивiльнoгo Кoдeкcy Укpaїни’ (ApтEк 2020)]

    Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence—Summary of the Second and Third Sessions’ WIPO 2020, WIPO/IP/AI/3/GE/20/INF/5, 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence—Summary of the First Session’ WIPO 2019, WIPO/IP/AI/GE/19, 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, ‘Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era—The Human-Like Authors Are Already Here—A New Model’ (2017) 2017 Michigan State Law Review 659

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesus M N Zatarain, ‘The Role of Automated Technology in the Creation of Copyright Works: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence’ (2017) 31(1) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 91

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostiantyn Zerov, ‘Review of the Theoretical Approaches Regarding the Legal Protection of Objects Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights’ (2021) 6 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 25 [Кocтянтин Зepoв, ‘Oгляд Teopeтичниx Пiдxoдiв щoдo Пpaвoвoї Oxopoни Oб’єктiв, Згeнepoвaниx Cиcтeмaми Штyчнoгo Iнтeлeктy y Cфepi Aвтopcькoгo Пpaвa i Cyмiжниx Пpaв’ (2021) 6 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 25]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private International Law Department of the Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Kateryna Militsyna

Authors
  1. Kateryna Militsyna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kateryna Militsyna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Heiko Richter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Militsyna, K. (2023). Legal Framework for Output Based on Artificial Intelligence: Ukraine’s Place on the Global Search Path. In: Richter, H. (eds) Competition and Intellectual Property Law in Ukraine. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 31. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66101-7_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66101-7_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66100-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66101-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation