An artist or composer who created a painting or a piece of music, writers and scientists who wrote books and/or articles, that is, everyone who creates something through creative work, are their authors. So, in Art. 1228 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that “the author of the result of intellectual activity is the citizen whose creative work created such a result.” That is, the author is an individual and, according to Article 1265 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, copyright is inalienable, it cannot be sold or transferred for use to another person.”
In recent years, the question of determining authorship in the case of creation has often been raised.
intellectual property object by artificial intelligence (AI)
. The law classifies an individual as a creator of intellectual property (IP), who can use any tool to perform his work, including a brush, pen, plaster, laptop or software with which he can create or invent.
The concept of artificial intelligence in Russian legislation appeared in 2019, when the presidential decree “On the development of artificial intelligence in the Russian Federation” was issued, which states that the use of a neural network makes it possible to generate results in response to tasks set by a person, comparable to the results of his intellectual activity. However, a neural network is just a tool used to achieve a goal, which means the copyright must belong to a person. That is, according to Russian legislation, the author can only be a person (individual), and not a neural network, regardless of what contribution it makes to the creative object being created.
Opponents of this point of view believe that since a creative product is completely created by neural network algorithms, then it is the author and its activities are of a creative nature.
Currently, despite the fact that the question of the percentage of the contribution of man and artificial intelligence to the created work remains controversial, the legislation of all countries supports the decisive participation of natural intelligence in the creation of creative results, and the neural network is considered only a tool for achieving them.
However, in practice there has been an attempt to challenge this point of view. Thus, in 2019, Thaler S., the creator of the DABUS (AI) neural network for generating inventions, filed two applications for the invention of a signal lamp and a drink container, where he indicated AI as the author, but received patents only in South Africa. Subsequently, Mr. Thaler S. achieved recognition of the neural network as the author, but then this decision was also rejected, since the neural network was recognized only as a tool used to solve problems posed by the author. (Source:
The neural network cannot be recognized as a subject of law
, since it cannot independently develop and use certain algorithms to search and analyze information found on the network, on the basis of which inventions or works of art are created.
The financial question also remains open about who will receive remuneration for the invention, pay fees and resolve many issues related to its use, for example, when identifying violations by competing companies and violations of legal relations between the author and the copyright holder of the neural network, since the question of the possibility of recognizing him as the author or co-author of works or inventions remains controversial.
In conclusion, I would like to note that it is too early to raise the question of the degree of involvement of a neural network in the creation of artistic or scientific works and their recognition as full subjects of copyright. Determining their status requires comprehension and careful revision of legislation.
Currently, in accordance with the norms of Russian legislation, the author of an invention or work can only be an individual, and taking into account the fact that all algorithms for a neural network are written and improved by a person, AI cannot be considered as an independent subject of law. Representatives of the European Patent Office share the same opinion, but perhaps in the near future artificial intelligence will cease to be just a tool in its hands. (
