The Legal Regime of the AI Generated Results: Anthropocentrism vs. Transhumanism in the Field of Intellectual Property Law

Rapid development of technology suggests the advent of a new industrial revolution. Artificial intelligence technology is one of the driving forces of this process that has an increasing impact on socioeconomic relations, changing ideas about the limits of human capabilities in the field of information analysis and data processing. The role of artificial intelligence is not limited to information processing, since its functioning is also aimed at generating creative content. The academic literature indicates that the development of artificial intelligence technology will lead to «seismic» social and economic consequences. It will have a devastating impact on legislation, in particular in the field of intellectual property. The paper defends the thesis that the technological and transhumanistic revolution in intellectual property law has not taken place. The fundamental idea that only a human is the creator provides the basis of intellectual property rights. As a general rule, the results generated by artificial intelligence should remain in the public domain, since neither software developers using artificial intelligence technology nor its users have the right to privatize the intellectual and cultural heritage of human society. The arguments of the authors, who believe that the transfer of the results generated by artificial intelligence into the public domain deprives the developers of this technology of economic incentives are unconvincing. Artificial intelligence technologies have their own economic incentives that justify investments in this area. The new practice of generative artificial intelligence providers to assume the property risks of their users justifies this approach. It can be stated that conditions are emerging for establishing a general model of tort liability for violation by generative intelligence providers of the exclusive rights of authors and other copyright holders.

1. Abbott RB, Rothman E. Disrupting Creativity: Copyright Law in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Florida Law Review; 2022. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4185327.

2. Arvidsson M. Targeting, Gender, and International Posthumanitarian Law: Framing the Question of the Human in International Humanitarian Law. Australian Feminist Law Journal. 2018;44(1):9-28.

3. Barad K. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs. 2003;28(3):801-831.

4. Benassi J. Paradise Lost: Art Created by AI Is Ineligible for Copyright Protection. Available at: https://www.ipupdate.com/2022/03/paradise-lost-art-created-by-ai-is-ineligible-for-copyright-protection/.

5. Bogdanov EV. Problems of socialization and humanization of the civil legislation of Russia. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2023. (In Russ.).

6. Bonadio E, McDonagh L. Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 2020;2:112-137.

7. Braidotti R. Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2019.

8. Braidotti R. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2013.

9. Charter N. The Mind Is Flat: The Illusion of Mental Depth and the Improvised Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2019.

10. Choat S. Science, Agency and Ontology: A Historical-Materialist Response to New Materialism. Political Studies. 2018;66(4):1027-1042.

11. Craig CJ, Kerr IR. The Death of the AI Author. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper (March 25, 2019). Ottawa Law Review. 2021;2(1):31-86. Available at: https://rdo-olr.org/2021/the-death-of-the-ai-author.

12. Denicola RC. Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works. Rutgers University Law Review. 2016;69:251-287.

13. Dennett D. Consciousness Explained. Little Brown; 2017.

14. Dubrovskiy DI. The Daniel Dennett’s Theater (about a Popular Concept of Consciousness). Voprosy Filosofii. 2003;7:92-111. (In Russ.).

15. Eremenko VI. On the legal protection of related rights in the Russian Federation. Zakonodatel’stvo i ekonomika. 2012;2:30-55. (In Russ.).

16. Fedorov YuM. Sum of anthropology. Book 2: Cosmo-anthropo-socioprodogenesis of Man. 2nd ed. Novosibirsk: Nauka Siberian Publishing Company of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 1996. (In Russ.).

17. Ferrante A, Sartori D. From Anthropocentrism to Post-Humanism in the Educational Debate. Relations. 2016;4(2):175-194.

18. Gozenpud AA. Notes on «Mozart and Salieri» by Pushkin. Vremennik Pushkinskoj komissii. 2002;2:171-180. (In Russ.).

19. Grear A. Deconstructing Anthropos: A Critical Legal Reflection on «Anthropocentric» Law and Anthropocene «Humanity». Law Critique. 2015;26:225-249.

20. Greenberg BA. Rethinking Technology Neutrality. Minnesota Law Review. 2015;100:1495-1562.

21. Grimmelmann J. There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work — And It’s a Good Thing, Too. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. 2016;3:403-416.

22. Hacker Ph. A Legal Framework for AI Training Data — From First Principles to the Artificial Intelligence Act.

23. Law, Innovation and Technology. March 18, 2020. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3556598.

24. Hepp A. Deep Mediatization. London: Routledge; 2020.

25. Hoffman D. The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. London: Allen Lane; 2019.

26. Hume D. Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding. Essays: in 2 Vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl Publ.; 1996. (In Russ.).

27. Isaeva MV. The color palette of frescoes of the Ferapontov Monastery. Culture and Arts Herrald. 2010;1(21):7781. (In Russ.).

28. Johnson J. Database Protection a Reality? How the Professional and Fantasy Sporting World Could Benefit from a Sui Generis Intellectual Property Right. Intellectual Property Journal. 2015;27(2):237-256.

29. Kalpokiene J., Kalpokas, I. Creative encounters of a posthuman kind — anthropocentric law, artificial intelligence, and art. Technology in Society. 2023;72:102-197.

30. Kirillina L. Beethoven and Salieri. Starinnaya muzyka =Early music quarterly. 2000;2(8):15-19. (In Russ.).

31. Kiryukhin DV. «Incipit Liber De naturis bestianum…» — The Aberdeen Bestiary in Latin language classes. Prepodavatel, XXI vek. 2018;4:247-254. (In Russ.).

32. Kuteynikov DL, Izhaev OA, Zenin SS, Lebedev VA. The nature and legal features of cyber-physical, cyberbiological and artificial cognitive systems. Rossijskoe Pravo. Obrazovanie, Praktika, Nauka = Russian Law: Education, Practice, Researches. 2019;3(111):75-81. (In Russ.).

33. Lee H. Rethinking Creativity: Creative Industries, AI and Everyday Creativity. Media, Culture & Society. 2022;44(3):601-612.

34. Litman J. Digital Copyright. Amherst: Prometheus Books: 2006

35. Lupton D, Watson A. Towards More-than-Human Digital Data Studies: Developing Research-Creation Methods. Qualitative Research. 2021;21(4):463-480.

36. Machanov DN. Criteria for creative activity or contribution of copyright objects created by artificial intelligence. Education and Law. 2020;2:333-335. (In Russ.).

37. Margulies JD, Bersaglio B. Furthering Post-Human Political Ecologies. Geoforum. 2018;94:103-106.

38. Martianova EYu. On the issue of determining the subject of authorship in respect of works created by artificial intelligence. Perm Law Almanac. 2019;2:241-256. (In Russ.).

39. Maslov VI, Lukyanov IV. The fourth industrial revolution: origins and consequences. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 27, Global Studies and Geopolitics. 2017;2:38-48. (In Russ.).

40. Mauthner NS. Toward a Posthumanist Ethics of Qualitative Research in a big data Era. American Behavioral Scientist. 2019;63(6):669-698.

41. Mertsalov AV. Agency, personal identity, and moral responsibility. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 7, Philosophy. 2022;5:72-90. (In Russ.).

42. Mezei P. From Leonardo to the Next Rembrandt — The Need for AI-Pessimism in the Age of Algorithms. UFITA. 2020;84(2):390-429.

43. Miller V. Understanding Digital Culture. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2020.

44. Moruzzi C. Artificial Creativity and General Intelligence. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts. 2021;12(3):84-99.

45. Nevejans N. European Civil Law Rules in Robotics. European Union; 2016. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU(2016)571379_EN.pdf.

46. Palace VM. What if Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law. Florida Law Review. 2019;71(1):217-242.

47. Pokrovskiy IA. The history of Roman law. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2004. (In Russ.).

48. Rakhmatullina RS. The use of artificial intelligence technology and the specifics of protecting its results. Education and Law. 2020;11:173-177. (In Russ.).

49. Ramalho A. Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World? A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems. Journal of Internet Law. 2017;(1):1-25.

50. Raygorodskiy LD. Space in Giotto’s Art. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Arts. 2013;1:117-124. (In Russ.). Raygorodsky LD. Space in El Greco Paintings. Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Arts. 2014;4:96-105. (In Russ.).

51. Ricketson S, Ginsburg JС. International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2006.

52. Roden D. Posthumanism: Critical, Speculative, Biomorphic. In: Thomsen MR and Wamberg J (eds). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Posthumanism. New York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.

53. Srinivasan K, Kasturirangan R. Political Ecology, Development and Human Exceptionalism. Geoforum. 2016;75:125-128.

54. Thomsen MR, Wamberg J. Introduction. In: Thomsen MR and Wamberg J (eds). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Posthumanism. New York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.

55. Zibner J. Artificial Intelligence: A Creative Player in the Game of Copyright. European Journal of Law and Technology. 2019;(1):1-20.