ЗАХИСТ АВТОРСЬКИХ ПРАВ НА ТВОРИ, СТВОРЕНІ ШТУЧНИМ ІНТЕЛЕКТОЗАХИСТ АВТОРСЬКИХ ПРАВ НА ТВОРИ, СТВОРЕНІ ЗА ДОПОМОГОЮ ШТУЧНОГО ІНТЕЛЕКТУ
Introduction. Artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly impacted various aspects of human life, including text generation, software development, and art creation. Many sport and business news articles available online have been authored by AI. Under the current legal frameworks in many jurisdictio...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Автори: | , |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
PH “Akademperiodyka”
2025
|
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | https://scinn-eng.org.ua/ojs/index.php/ni/article/view/742 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Science and Innovation |
Репозитарії
Science and Innovation| Резюме: | Introduction. Artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly impacted various aspects of human life, including text generation, software development, and art creation. Many sport and business news articles available online have been authored by AI. Under the current legal frameworks in many jurisdictions, AI-generated works have generally been regarded as tools. However, the evolution of advanced AI technologies has significantly challenged this traditional perspective.Problem Statement. The rise of AI has introduced significant challenges to intellectual property law, particularly copyright. In the context of copyright, AI-generated works have sparked legal disputes regarding whether AI can be recognized as the author of creative works, how such works should be protected, and who holds the rights to them.Purpose. This study aims to critically analyze copyright issues related to AI-generated works, identify the legal regulations governing such works in developed countries, and propose recommendations to enhance Kazakhstani copyright law for AI-generated outputs.Materials and Methods. The research has employed comparative legal analysis, general scientific methods, and specific scientific approaches.Results. Drawing on foreign practices, the study has concluded that the individual who has made the necessary arrangements for the creation of AI-generated works should be recognized as the author.Conclusions. The paper provides practical recommendations for improving Kazakhstani legislation on copyright protection for AI-generated works. The findings may serve as a valuable resource for future legal research on regulating copyright for AI-generated outputs. |
|---|