Copyright Protection for AI-general Works: Dilemmas and Strategies

This study aims to analyze Unfair Competition in the field of Intellectual property rights. This research seeks to explore and show how the concept of unfair Competition interferes in the area of intellectual property rights. Furthermore, we have investigated how competition law and intellectual property rights interfere with each other. The research evaluates unfair competition practices in the scope of intellectual property rights, referring to specific international laws directly related to each course. Finally, it examines the regulatory system that governs these sectors. Reference is made particularly to the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law and other international laws on trademark practices. As far as the study's methodology is concerned, qualitative data analysis is applicable alongside with comparative legal method for analyzing "de lege lata" and "de lege feranda" situations in a range of the concluded topic. The study finds out that Unfair Competition in the domain of Intellectual Property rights involves actions by an operator that infringe the legislation's rules, harm operators' legitimate rights and interest on the market, thereby threatening socio-economic order. The study concluded that Unfair Competition acts in the field of Intellectual Property rights (like Industrial espionage, infringement of trade secrets, trademark infringement) impede innovation, stifle, and affect Competition in the real market. And the occurrence of these Unfair Competition practices is common, even though there are existing legal frameworks that regulate this sector. The research reveals an international regulatory system such as the Paris Convention 1883, the Patent Act 1977, and the Espionage Act 1996 have specific and statutory laws that target unfair competition practices. The Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Act 1993 forbids unfair Competition in intellectual property rights and defends operators and citizens from unfair competition practices. The study also deduces that the existing legal framework regulating this sector is practical to a small extent because these Unfair Competition Practices are still very much detectable in the trade sector. As most legal frameworks dwell on civil liabilities instead of criminal penalties, operators can easily violate the law by relying on whether they can afford the civil penalties. There are recent amendments to adjust and adapt to the evolution of patterns and daily market innovations (Example: Amendment of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2003). We concluded the study by bringing in suggestions and recommendations. Qualitative research methodology applies to the following article.

Issues, arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society, have been considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity have been examined. Questions of copyright and ownership in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems have been raised and proposed. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property have been considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems has been presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject – a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights also have been considered, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data have been considered. Harmonization of international intellectual property rights policies to alleviate the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development has been examined.

In the article, prepared on the basis of the author’s plenary report presented at the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, held in Moscow at the MSLA on October 30, 2020, issues arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society are considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity are discussed. Questions of copyright and ownership are raised and proposed in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property are considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems is presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject — a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights are also discussed, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data are considered. It is proposed to harmonize international intellectual property rights policies to reduce the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development.

More frequent infringements causing high damages to persons holding intellectual property rights have influenced the intensified actions within member states and the European Union in regard to the harmonisation of criminal legal protection in the field of intellectual property rights. The author in this article analyses current measures and acts and pays a special attention to the compatibility of new Croatian legislation with recent tendencies implemented in the European Union.

This research aims to obtain a picture of the policy in the field of intellectual property rights as well as legislation and law enforcement of intellectual Property Rights (HAKI). The increasingly high-flow of free trades that demand the higher creativity of the resulting products proved increasingly spur on the technological developments that support these needs. Along with this, it began to realize the importance of the role of intellectual Property Rights (HAKI) in supporting technological developments. This is seen from the increasingly high number of copyright, patent and trademark applications and the sufficient number of industrial design applications addressed to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights, the Office of the jurisdiction and human rights. 
 By using a descriptive analysis obtained the idea that the implementation of good intellectual property rights system not only requires the legislation in the field of intellectual property right but should be supported also by Administration, law enforcement and an optimal socialization program on intellectual property Rights (HAKI).
 The results of the research show that at this time, Indonesia has had a legal device in the field of intellectual property rights which is adequate and does not contradict the provisions as required in Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect Of Intelectual Property Rights. In principle, all rules of intellectual property rights have been prepared about the interests of the Community and by the minimum provisions as required by TRIPS approval (Agreement on Trade-Related) Aspect Of Intelectual Property Rights).

The article is devoted to the study of the delimitation of administrative and criminal liability for infringements in the field of intellectual property rights. The current issues of implementation of these types of responsibilities depending on the legislative approach to the reflection of the relevant provisions in regulations are highlighted. The analysis of dispositions and sanctions of separate administrative offenses and criminal offenses in the field of the intellectual property rights is carried out. Theoretical generalization of differences between administrative and criminal liability for infringements in the field of intellectual property rights on the basis of the main features of legal liability with coverage of current theoretical and practical problems and identify areas for their solution. The shortcomings of practical application of administrative and criminal liability for these offenses are identified and the imperfection of domestic legislation in the absence of systematization of offenses against intellectual property rights, both within the administrative and criminal legislation of Ukraine. The article also summarizes the differences between administrative and criminal liability for infringements in the field of intellectual property rights on the basis of the main features of legal liability with covering of current theoretical and practical problems and identifying specific areas for their solution. The analysis of the current state of realization of legal responsibility in the field of protection of intellectual property rights is also carried out, taking into account their peculiarities and substantiation of directions for elimination of existing shortcomings. It is substantiated that from the practical point of view, legal protection of intellectual property in Ukraine requires a comprehensive transformation of administrative and criminal liability in the direction of developing an effective procedural mechanism for their implementation, eliminating shortcomings and inconsistencies in current legislation of Ukraine. Strengthening of criminal responsibility for criminal offenses in the field of intellectual property rights is proposed, emphasis is placed on the need to establish an independent institute of criminal law protection of intellectual property in Ukraine.

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property share a synergistic connection, where the former helps the other. where Artificial intelligence has come out as an advancing powerful tool to solve complex problems in all areas, intellectual property still has some catching up to do. This research paper delves into the transformative influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the landscape of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). As advancements are being made in the field of AI technologies, giving rise to a whole new sector of innovation and growth. The development of various AI technologies and tools being used in various industries has raised novel challenges and opportunities for intellectual property protection. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the intersection between AI and IPR, and the applicability of AI in IP. The objectives of the study would be to understand the concept of IPR and AI along with existing challenges and issues in the field of AI related to IPR in India. The facts Figures and data collected from secondary and published sources like official websites of Intellectual Property India and from E journals magazines, and from other sites. The paper elucidates the role of AI in innovation and creativity, exploring how AI-generated content and inventions challenge traditional notions of authorship and inventorship. It further investigates the adequacy of existing IPR frameworks in addressing the unique attributes of AI-generated outputs and the evolving concept of ownership. Athorough analysis and discussion on existing issues and threats that AI developments are causing in the IPR policy framework. Additionally, the research scrutinizes the use of the recent AI system, CHATGPT. The study also delves into the viewpoints of global influential people related to AI development regulatory framework and laws in the field of IPR.

Artificial Intelligence which seemed to be a distant dream at some point has now come out of the science fiction movies to our reality and has gathered momentum over past few years and has led to many developments in almost all the sectors. No sector will remain untouched by artificial intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights too will not be an exception to the same. The impact of Artificial Intelligence in the field of Intellectual Property Rights will be two ways, on one hand Artificial Intelligence will prove to be an asset in the areas of patent and patent search tools, accurate and timely research, providing a mechanism to sort out inventions and ideas and provide with a mechanism to the innovator on the patents already existing similar to his idea and many other things but on the other hand the Artificial Intelligence might also prove to be a threat to innovation and creativity which is the heart and soul of Intellectual Property Rights. The research paper will discuss in detail about the impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights, the pros and cons of Artificial Intelligence on creativity and innovation in IPR and will also deal with the future scope of Artificial Intelligence in Intellectual Property Rights.

Мақолада интеллектуал мулк объектларига нисбатан мутлақ ҳуқуқларни суд орқали ҳимоя қилиш борасидаги миллий ва хорижий тажриба ўрганилган. Интеллектуал мулк объектларига нисбатан мутлақ ҳуқуқларни муҳофаза қилиш усуллари ичида суд орқали ҳимоя қилишнинг ўрни ва ўзига хослиги, мазкур масаланинг ҳуқуқий асослари, миллий қонунчилик аҳволи, судловга тааллуқлилиги, бу борадаги суд статистикаси, суд амалиёти ҳамда хорижий давлатлар тажрибаси таҳлил қилинган.
 Бугунги кунда интеллектуал мулк объектлари билан боғлиқ бўлган низоларни ҳал этиш масаласи судлар фаолиятидаги энг долзарб масалалардан бири эканлиги, чунки интеллектуал мулк ҳуқуқларининг бузилиши мавзуси бутун дунёда бўлгани каби Ўзбекистонда ҳам жиддий ижтимоий муаммога айланиб бораётганлиги эътироф этилган ҳолда унинг ижтимоий-иқтисодий ва ҳуқуқий оқибатлари асослаб берилган.
 Жаҳон мамлакатлари тажрибасида интеллектуал мулк объектлари билан боғлиқ ишларнинг судловга тааллуқлилиги масаласи қандай ҳал этилганлигини чуқур таҳлил қилиш асосида интеллектуал мулк объектлари билан боғлиқ низоларни кўришга ихтисослашган алоҳида судларнинг ташкил этилиши низоларни сансалорликларсиз, қисқа муддатларда кўриб чиқилишига ҳамда қонуний, асосли ва адолатли суд қарорлари қабул қилинишига замин яратиши тўғрисида хулосага келинган.
 Мақолада судлар амалиётида интеллектуал мулк билан боғлиқ масалаларни кўриб чиқишда асосан икки тоифадаги муаммо мавжудлиги таъкидланган. Биринчиси, субъектив омиллар билан боғлиқ бўлса, иккинчиси, объектив қийинчилар эканлиги кўрсатилган. Субъектив муаммолар қаторида судларда мазкур тоифадаги ишларнинг барчасини ҳам кўриб ҳал этиш бўйича тажрибанинг мавжуд эмаслиги айтилган. Объектив омиллар сифатида судлар томонидан ушбу тоифадаги ишларни кўриб чиқишда муайян ҳуқуқий асоснинг мавжуд эмаслиги ёхуд тегишли қонун ҳужжатларининг лозим даражада такомиллашмаганлиги, шу боис, бу борада ягона суд амалиётининг шаклланмаганлиги эътироф этилган.
 Бозор иқтисодиётига асосланган ижтимоий муносабатларнинг тобора ривожланиши, интеллектуал мулкнинг давлат ва жамият ҳаётидаги аҳамияти ва ўрнининг кескин ошиб бораётганлиги Ўзбекистонда ҳам ителлектуал мулк билан боғлиқ низоларни кўриб чиқишга ихтисослашган судларни ташкил этиш заруратини келтириб чиқараётганлиги ҳақида хулоса қилинган. Шу сабабли, Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий судида интеллектуал мулк билан боғлиқ низоларни кўришга ихтисослашган судлов ҳайъатини ташкил этиш мақсадга мувофиқлиги асосланган. Шунингдек, Ўзбекистон Республикаси Судьялар олий кенгаши ҳузуридаги Судьялар олий мактабида судьяларни интеллектуал мулк ҳуқуқига доир низоларни кўриш бўйича қайта тайёрлаш ва малакаларини ошириш тизимини йўлга қўйиш ҳамда бу борада Бутунжаҳон интеллектуал мулк ташкилоти ва Интеллектуал мулк агентлиги билан ҳамкорликни ривожлантириш лозимлиги таъкидланган.
 Қиёсий тадқиқот усуллари асосида Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Фуқаролик процессуал кодекси, Иқтисодий процессуал кодекси, Маъмурий суд ишларини юритиш тўғрисидаги кодексига интеллектул мулк ҳуқуқига оид низоларни судда кўришнинг ўзига хос хусусиятларини акс эттирувчи нормаларни жамлаган боб киритиш, ушбу бобда даъво аризалари, аризалар, шикоятларга қўйиладиган талаблар, судга мурожаат қилиш муддатлари ва уларни кўриб чиқишнинг процессуал муддатлари, бу турдаги ишларни кўришнинг бошқа тоифадаги ишлардан фарқли бўлган жиҳатларини ёритиб берувчи барча ҳолатларни ифодаловчи нормаларни назарда тутиш, интеллектуал мулк ҳуқуқи соҳасидаги маъмурий ҳуқуқбузарликлар учун маъмурий жавобгарликни, шунингдек интеллектуал мулк объектларидан ноқонуний фойдаланганлик учун жиноий жавобгарликни кучайтириш масалаларини ҳам кўриб чиқиш зарурлиги исботлаб берилган.

In this work, we consider technologies, innovations and intellectual property rights. In the context of modern development of all spheres of human life, the concepts of «technology», «innovation» and «innovative technologies» are an integral aspect of the present. They play an important and key role in the competitiveness of not only individual enterprises and organizations, but also in law and economics in general, since innovative technologies are the basis for the positive development of society and the legal relations that arise in this regard, including legal relations in the field of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is the result of intellectual and creative activity, which is formalized and grants the author or a person who is granted the right of ownership of the result by law, which is acquired, exercised and protected in accordance with the established procedure, rules and legally defined norms. It is the objects of intellectual property rights that are in clear interaction with technology and innovation. Detailed attention is paid to the essence and content of innovations and technologies in the field of intellectual activity, in particular in the production and change of characteristics of the relevant objects of intellectual property rights. The author focuses on the conceptual apparatus of such concepts as «innovation», «technology», «intellectual property», «intellectual property rights», and technology transfer. The modern national and foreign literature is analyzed with a view to defining the basic concepts of the study and their legislative consolidation. The author analyzes the features of technology transfer, in particular, it is established that innovative technologies are endowed with novelty, revolutionary nature, irreplaceability, uniqueness, and inevitability. The author establishes the interconnectedness of the content of «innovations» and «technologies» in relation to intellectual property rights, namely, directly to intellectual property objects, which are manifested by applying know-how or an invention to a specific result of intellectual activity in the production process.

The Industrial Revolution 4.0 brings new challenges in the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) for business activities, such as the increased potential for IPR violations through massive digital dissemination, cross-border infringements, and the need for regulatory adjustments to accommodate the latest technological developments. Efforts to protect IPR in the digital era require more effective law enforcement, strong international cooperation, increased public awareness, and the availability of competent human resources in the field of IPR. The aim of this study is to analyze the legal protection for intellectual property rights holders in business activities during the Industrial Revolution 4.0 and to identify the challenges faced in these legal protection efforts. This research is normative legal research using a statute approach and a conceptual approach to examine primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials related to the protection of intellectual property rights in business activities during the Industrial Revolution 4.0. Data collection techniques are carried out through literature studies and qualitative data analysis to understand legal concepts, identify problems, and find solutions in the legal protection of intellectual property rights holders. The results of the study show that the legal protection for intellectual property rights (IPR) holders in business activities during the Industrial Revolution 4.0 is regulated by various laws in Indonesia, such as the Copyright Law, Trademark Law, Patent Law, and Trade Secrets Law. Although there is already a legal framework, IPR protection in the digital era faces new challenges such as digital infringement, trade secret theft through illegal access, and online trademark and patent violations. The government has taken steps such as the enactment of the Information and Electronic Transactions Law (ITE Law), the establishment of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI), and the signing of international agreements related to IPR. However, comprehensive efforts are needed from the government, businesses, and the public through regulatory improvements, law enforcement, socialization, IPR registration, information system security, monitoring, and international cooperation to effectively protect IPR. The main challenges include rapid technological development, cross-border violations, lack of public understanding, limited competent human resources, and still less effective law enforcement.

Investment includes tangible and intangible assets. Intangible assets are often connected with intellectual property which leads to intangible results. The lack of “visibility” in intangible assets makes them difficult to measure. Current international regulations have not also explicitly provided room for enforcement regarding intellectual property rights in terms of foreign investment. Therefore, an emergence of cases is observed in investment disputes within the field of intellectual property rights through the Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. In this research, we discuss cases of foreign investment disputes in such a field. From these cases, we find the factors that determine the occurrence of foreign investment disputes in the field of intellectual property rights. The ISDS mechanism can be used to resolve foreign investment disputes in the field of intellectual property. Furthermore, this research discusses the perspective of Indonesian law regarding foreign investment disputes in the mentioned field by using the ISDS mechanism. Qualitative methods and secondary data analysis are also used. The research aims to discover and identify foreign investment disputes in the field of intellectual property rights.

Evolution of internet and technology has led to an increase in electronic commerce (e‐commerce). Consequently, disputes regarding commercial use of the internet are emerging in many developed and developing countries. Many of these disputes concern the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights. However, IP rights are, perhaps, spurned by many developing countries when it comes to e‐commerce—making it a timely study for many developing countries such as Bangladesh; whose e‐commerce industry is experiencing extraordinary growth in the past few years. Although Bangladesh embarked into e‐commerce years ago, however, judiciary of the country has not yet experienced disputes addressing IP rights in the e‐commerce industry. Mostly, because the significant connection of IP rights with e‐commerce are yet to comprehend. Against this backdrop, focusing on the propinquity between e‐commerce and IP rights, this paper examines the adeptness of the contemporary IP rights enactments of Bangladesh in protecting IP rights in e‐commerce industry of Bangladesh. Arguing that IP rights are the most essential and value‐bearing component of e‐commerce industry, the paper presents how IP rights are violated by various entities of the industry every now and then. The paper delineates the disputes of such nature which already exist but remained unaddressed because of the inadequate understanding of IP rights and loopholes in the Bangladesh IP enactments. The paper concludes by giving a persuasive guideline to protect the legitimate rights and interests of various entities of the e‐commerce industry in Bangladesh.

The article deals with the nature and features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization. It is argued that it is inappropriate to distinguish the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization in the structure of intellectual property rights from the right to protection of economic competition. Based on a system analysis of the legislation, scientific literature review, and the practice of its application, the right to protection is classified in an objective and subjective meaning. In its objective meaning, the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is a component of the right to intellectual property, to protection against unfair competition. The subjective right to protection against the unfair use of the means of individualization is an independent right. The following features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization are identified on the basis of the analysis. The objective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is characterized by a set of civil law rules governing relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition and determining the grounds, forms, procedure and methods of protection of such rights. This right combines two components: the protection of intellectual property rights and economic competition relations. The subjects of this right are economic entities. At the same time, the exercise of the right to protection in connection with the violation of the law on protection against unfair competition ensures the protection of consumers’ rights, as it guarantees them good quality goods on the market. The object of this right is relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition. The subjective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individuation is the use of a provided by law capacity to renew, recognize or award the right to use the means of individualization by an economic entity. Such subjective right is characterized by the following features: it always implies the implementation of active actions, the possibility of choosing the forms and methods of protection. Keywords: means of individualization, unfair use, right to protection, objective right, subjective right, intellectual property rights, unfair competition.

Participation in the WTO has given consequences to its member countries, including Indonesia, to harmonize its laws in the field of Intellectual Property Rights for full compliance or full compliance as a minimum requirement and guidelines for WTO member countries to contain new norms and has a higher standard and contains strict law enforcement provisions as set by the TRIPs. In view of these matters, Indonesia has harmonized the existing laws in the field of Intellectual Property Rights and made legal norms in accordance with the standards set by the TRIPs for several fields of Intellectual Property Rights which had not yet been enacted at the time, where 3 ( three) including Law Number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets, Law Number 31 of 2000 concerning Industrial Design and Law Number 32 of 2000 concerning Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, the regulations also meet the standards set by TRIPs , in order to provide adequate legal protection to guarantee the rights of Owners of Trade Secrets and Designers and to ensure that other unauthorized parties do not abuse them, so as to motivate the owners of trade secrets and designers to continue to be creative in creating and/or designing, as well also stimulates other communities to do same things.