UDC: 347.73

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COPYRIGHT: LEGAL ASPECTS

Kildeev Adel

Zhdanov A. Leningrad State University (1990)

Philosophiæ Doctor in Law

ORCID: 009-0001-2211-4944

Abstract: This article examines the issues of copyright in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well as the protection of intellectual property created using AI.

Objective: to consider the existing law enforcement practice on the protection of copyright and AI in the world and to propose measures of legal regulation.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, copyright, legal regulation of AI, legal status of AI.

This article is a follow-up to my previous article “Artificial Intelligence as a Human Servant or Vice Versa: Legal Aspects” published in the first issue of this journal (April 2025), as well as the article “Ethical Application of Artificial Intelligence: A Global Review of Principles, Practices, Regulations and Consequences” published in the second issue of the same journal (May 2025).^[1]

Millions of users in the world generate pictures, videos, songs, lyrics using various AI every day, without thinking about how exactly AI performs the task assigned to them and whether this violates existing copyrights to intellectual property. And it is in vain that they do not think about it.

A good analysis of this important legal issue is given in Negara Bondari’s article “AI, Copyright and the Law: The Ongoing Struggle for Intellectual Property Rights”:

«1. Current legal environment for AI-generated content

One of the most pressing questions is whether AI-generated works can be protected under copyright law. In August 2023, a district court in Washington, D.C., confirmed the U.S. Copyright Office’s position that AI-generated content cannot obtain copyright protection on its own.^[2] Even though Thaler’s AI-created work met all the requirements for copyright protection, “the court agreed with the Copyright Office that only people can be considered authors under U.S. copyright law, which means that an AI-created work like the one submitted by Thaler is not eligible for copyright protection.”^[3]. The Court emphasized that human creativity is a fundamental requirement for the enforcement of copyright.

This decision is consistent with previous rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, which rejected applications for artworks created by artificial intelligence. It is also consistent with the broader principle that copyright protects the expression of ideas by human beings, rather than the ideas themselves or works created by autonomous machines. The U.S. Copyright Office has consistently argued that human authorship is a prerequisite for copyright protection, a position that has been upheld by recent court rulings.^[4]

However, this solution does not fully address the complexities of human-AI collaboration. The Copyright Office has clarified that if a person makes significant creative contributions, such as editing, arranging or selecting AI-generated elements, the work may be eligible for copyright protection are crucial factors in determining the copyright of AI-generated works.^[5] But the line between human authorship and machine production remains blurred, and future court cases are likely to refine this legal standard.

2. AI Training and Copyright Infringement: Lawsuits Against Tech Giants

In addition to authorship issues, there have been significant legal issues surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training AI models. Several high-profile lawsuits have been filed against companies such as OpenAI, Meta,^[6] and Stability AI, alleging unauthorized use of copyrighted content to train their generative AI models.

For example, in Andersen v. Stability AI, a group of artists alleged that Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt collected billions of images from the internet, including the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, in order to train their AI image-making platforms, such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney Product, DreamStudio, and DreamUp, without permission or compensation. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations that Stability had acquired copies of copyrighted The works of the plaintiffs, used those works to train Stable Diffusion, and then retained or incorporated the training images obtained from their works into Stable Diffusion as compressed copies, were sufficient to claim direct infringement. ^[7]

Similarly, in December 2023, The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their large language models illegally incorporated the newspaper’s copyrighted articles into their training datasets. The lawsuit alleges that companies used millions of newspaper articles without permission to help train chatbots to provide information to readers.^[8]

These cases raise fundamental questions: Does the use of copyrighted AI training materials fall within the scope of the fair use doctrine or is it a violation? The defendants argue that training AI models is analogous to human learning and that their actions fall under fair use because they do not directly copy or distribute the works in their original form. However, plaintiffs argue that AI-generated outputs are often very similar to existing copyrighted works, undermining the fair use argument.

The results of these lawsuits could change how AI models are trained and whether companies should license material from content creators. If courts rule against AI developers, companies may have to enter into licensing agreements with publishers, artists, and other content owners, which could significantly impact the business models of AI companies.

3. Legislative measures

In response to these legal battles, lawmakers have begun drafting legislation to address AI and copyright issues. One such proposal is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024, introduced in the U.S. Congress on April 9, 2024. increasing transparency and potentially giving copyright owners more control over their works. ^[9]

Another legislative initiative, the AI Fraud Ban Act, introduced in 2024, aims to prevent AI from being used to impersonate people without their consent. This could have implications for deepfake technology, especially in the entertainment industry, where AI-generated representations are becoming more common.^[10]

4. Global Perspectives: How Other Jurisdictions Are Dealing with AI and Copyright

While the U.S. is at the forefront of these legal battles, other countries are also grappling with artificial intelligence and copyright issues. As a result, the global landscape of AI and copyright law is evolving, with different jurisdictions taking different approaches to addressing the complexities associated with AI-generated content.

For example, the European Union is seeking to create a comprehensive legal framework for AI technologies through the proposed AI Law. The AI Law introduces a risk-based approach to AI regulation, classifying AI systems based on their potential risks and imposing appropriate obligations on providers and users. ensuring transparency and accountability in AI development and potentially setting a precedent for stricter copyright protection. This measure is designed to support existing copyright protection measures and promote responsible innovation in the field of artificial intelligence. ^[11] In addition, the Artificial Intelligence Act recognizes the importance of striking a balance between copyright protection and the promotion of innovation and research. It introduces limited exceptions for text and data mining, recognizing the need for proportionality in compliance requirements, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), start-ups, and non-profit organizations. ensuring proper protection of the interests of copyright holders.^[12]

Meanwhile, China is also developing a legal framework related to AI-generated content. In November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court issued a landmark ruling recognizing copyright protection for an AI-generated image, provided that the work demonstrates originality and reflects human intellectual effort.^[13] This decision reflects a progressive stance towards the recognition of AI-powered creations under Chinese copyright law. In addition, China’s regulatory approach requires AI-generated content to be clearly labeled, and AI-powered companies are liable for any misinformation or illegal content produced by their models.^[14] This stringent regulatory framework underscores China’s commitment to maintaining control over AI development and ensuring that AI technologies operate within the law.

These strict rules contrast with a more flexible approach in the U.S., where courts are still determining the extent to which AI should be prosecuted under existing copyright laws.

5. Looking to the Future: The Future of AI and Copyright

As AI technologies continue to advance, the legal framework must keep up with the times. Some key questions for the future include:

1. Will the courts set new fair use standards for AI training? If courts rule that permission is required to train AI models using copyrighted content, it could change the AI industry by requiring licensing agreements.
2. How will AI-human cooperation be treated under copyright law? The legal definition of “authorship” could be expanded to include AI-assisted creativity.
3. Получат ли законодательные усилия успех? Такие законопроекты, как Закон о раскрытии авторских прав на генеративный ИИ, могут установить новые требования к раскрытию информации для разработчиков ИИ.

For lawyers, artists, tech companies, and policymakers, the intersection of AI law and copyright represents one of the most dynamic and important legal debates of our time. With landmark court cases and legislative efforts unfolding in real time, staying informed is essential for everyone involved in IP and technology law.”^[15]

Speaking of lawsuits pending in the courts, it is impossible not to mention the recent lawsuit in June 2025 in federal district court in Los Angeles, California, by Hollywood film companies Disney and NBCUniversal against Midjourney based on allegations that the artificial intelligence engine, described in the lawsuit as a “bottomless pit of plagiarism”,^[16] was trained on the copyrighted works of both companies without permission. The lawsuit alleges, that Midjourney was pirate to steal the libraries of two Hollywood studios, making and distributing “countless” copies of characters like Darth Vader from Star Wars, Elsa from Frozen, and the minions from Despicable Me.

Disney and Universal have asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Midjourney from copying their work or offering its image or video creation services without protection from infringement. The studios are also demanding compensation for unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleges that Midjourney used the studio’s work to train its image service and create copyrighted reproductions of its characters.^[17]

How are AI and copyright considered by our legal science? Russian lawyers rightly note the diversity of positions on the issue of AI and copyright. “Determining the owner of rights in AI-generated works is not only theoretically difficult, but also has significant practical implications in the field of intellectual property. The first option that is being considered is to recognize the copyright of the AI developer or AI copyright holder. This approach is based on the assumption that the developer, by creating and programming AI, actually determines the parameters and capabilities of AI for content creation. Hence, the developer can be considered the author of the work created by the AI.

The second option is to recognize the AI user as the copyright holder. This approach argues that the user, by interacting with the AI and setting certain parameters or criteria for it, plays a key role in the creation of content and, therefore, should own the copyright to the results of the AI output.

The third option involves recognizing the copyright of the AI itself. However, this approach faces serious legal and philosophical problems, as AI does not currently have legal personality and cannot have legal rights and obligations.

The fourth option provides for joint ownership of the rights of AI rights holders and the user, which creates a number of difficulties in terms of practical implementation and legal interpretation.

Finally, the fifth option is that AI-generated content is not owned by anyone, which calls into question the appropriateness and feasibility of protecting this kind of intellectual property.”^[18] A similar analysis is given by other Russian lawyers, who believe that “the most logical approach at present is to recognize the creator of a particular neural network as the author… the author of the work can be the user of the platform….in the current conditions, it is necessary to amend the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which will equate the neural network to computer programs, and then, according to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the right of authorship can be recognized for the user of the neural network, at whose request the neural network generated images, in the case of the creative nature of his activity.”^[19] Professor, Doctor of Law Lutkova O.V. correctly notes that “today states are not ready to endow AI with the status of an author (and subject of law). A way out of the legal impasse could possibly be the establishment of a special legal regime in relation to the results created by neural networks that are comparable to the results of intellectual activity, in particular works. In view of the possible commercial and artistic value of the latter, it is advisable to include the results created by AI systems in the list of objects of civil rights equated to protected results of intellectual activity. In relation to such objects, a special regime can be established without granting non-property rights to anyone, but with the recognition of all (or some) property rights of the owner (lessee) of the AI system for a reduced period of time (for example, 25 years).”^[20]

Currently, the Law “On the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Systems in Russia” is being developed. The group includes lawyers, representatives of consulting companies and market participants developing AI, they said. The initiative is formalized in the form of a bill “On the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in Russia.” The document was discussed at meetings of working groups in the State Duma, in Business Russia, as well as at industry discussion platforms, RBC’s interlocutors noted.

The draft law proposes:

1. Introduce the concept of artificial intelligence (a set of technological and software solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including self-learning, search for solutions without a predetermined algorithm, and provide results comparable to the results of human intellectual activity).
2. The concept of AI technologies (these include technologies of computer vision, natural language processing, speech recognition and synthesis, data mining, machine learning, etc.).
3. The concept of AI systems (information systems that imitate human cognitive functions using the technologies listed above), the developer, operator and user of such systems, etc.
4. Introduce requirements for the labeling of AI systems, that is, a mandatory information designation that will indicate the use of AI in user interaction. Labeling must be “explicit, unambiguous and easily identifiable.” It must be provided by the operator of the AI system before each user interaction. The requirement will not apply to AI systems used in closed technological processes, for internal automation of organizations, and a number of others.
5. To introduce a classification of AI systems according to the level of potential risk: systems with an unacceptable, high, limited and minimal level of risk. It is proposed to prohibit in Russia the development and operation of AI systems that belong to the category with an unacceptable level of risk, that is, that pose a threat to the security of the individual, society and the state, as well as violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen; for high-risk systems (those used in healthcare, transport, finance, law enforcement and other areas where it can create significant risks to the life, health, fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens) to introduce mandatory state registration and certification; for those with a limited level of risk – internal quality control systems, voluntary certification.
6. Introduce liability for causing harm to life, health or property for persons involved in the development and operation of artificial intelligence systems. But the document stipulates that the developer will not be liable if he has taken all necessary measures to prevent harm, if the damage occurred due to a violation of the rules for the operation of the system and in several other exceptions, the operator of AI systems will be exempt from liability if he proves that the damage occurred through the fault of the developer as a result of the user’s violation of the rules for using the system, etc high-risk AI systems.
7. To determine who owns the rights to the result of intellectual activity created using AI, it is proposed to focus on whether there was a significant creative contribution of a person (whether a person determined the parameters and criteria for creating the result, whether he made a creative selection and refinement, whether he made creative decisions in the process of creation). If there was such a contribution, then the exclusive right to the result should belong to this person, if there was none, then to the operator of the AI system (valid for 50 years).

If the document is adopted in its current form, operators and developers of AI systems will have to comply with its requirements within a year after its entry into force; High-risk AI systems that were created before the adoption of the project will have to undergo mandatory certification within two years.^[21]

In addition to this Law, it is necessary to prepare appropriate amendments to the civil legislation, consolidating the status of AI as an object of law (not a subject), using by analogy the norms of Roman law regulating the status of a slave, of course, modified based on modern realities. The time for legal scholars to speculate about whether AI is human, animal, or legal entity, ridiculous to any sane lawyer, is long gone, and we are at a critical juncture in the development of a new technology that is being perfected before our eyes. AI is not a person, not an animal or a legal entity, it is a neural network that operates according to established algorithms, the works created with its help must be the property of the operator of the AI system (the right owner of the AI).

At the end of the article, I want to recall the film “Aladdin’s Magic Lamp” (1966), so beloved by all of us, when the Maghribin sorcerer, having taken possession of the magic lamp, makes the Genie repeat over and over again: I am a slave of the lamp! If we do not now determine WHO is the slave, and WHO is his master in relations with the AI, we may suffer the sad fate of this Maghribin.

References

1. SCIENTIFIC PLATFORM “XXI CENTURY” journal, # 1, April 2025, pp. 4-13, www.episs.ru; SCIENTIFIC PLATFORM “XXI CENTURY” journal, # 2, May 2025, pp. 92-126, www.episs.ru.

2. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023).

3. Jones Day, Court Finds AI-Generated Work Not Copyrightable for Failure to Meet “Human Authorship” Requirement—But Questions Remain, Jones Day (Aug. 2023) https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2023/08/court-finds-aigenerated-work-not-copyrightable-for-failure-to-meet-human-authorship-requirementbut-questions-remain?utm_source=chatgpt.com

4. What Does Copyright Protect?, Copyright.gov,  https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

5. Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 700 F. Supp. 3d 853 (N.D. Cal. 2023); see also, Kevin Madigan, Top Taleaways from Order in the Andersen v. Stability AI Copyright Case, Copyright Alliance (Aug. 2024), https://copyrightalliance.org/andersen-v-stability-ai-copyright-case/; Tal Dickstein & Edward Delman, Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Loeb&Leob LLP (Oct. 2023), https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2023/11/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

6. Jonathan Stempel, NY Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft for infringing copyrighted works, Ruters (Dec. 2023),  https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ny-times-sues-openai-microsoft-infringing-copyrighted-work-2023-12-27/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

7. Ewerton Barroso, New Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 Introduced, BYU (Apr. 2024) https://copyright.byu.edu/new-generative-ai-copyright-disclosure-act-of-2024-introduced.

8.Salazar Introduces the No AI Fraud Act (Jan. 2024),  https://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introduces-no-ai-fraud-act.

9. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence, Topics European Parliament (Jun 2024), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

10. EU AI Act: shaping Copyright compliance in the age of AI Innovation, KEA (Mar. 2024), https://keanet.eu/eu-ai-act-shaping-copyright-compliance-in-the-age-of-ai-innovation/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

11.Yuqian Wang & Jessie Zhang, Beijing Internet Court Grants Copyright to AI-Generated Image for the First Time, Wolters Kluwer (Feb. 2024),  https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/02/beijing-internet-court-grants-copyright-to-ai-generated-image-for-the-first-time/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

12. Cheryl Yu & Barbara Li, AI explained: AI regulations and PRC court decisions in China, ReedSmith (Oc. 2024), https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/10/ai-explained-ai-regulations-and-prc-court-decisions-in-china?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

13. Negar Bondari AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights. AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights – IP & Technology Law Society

14. Chmielewski, Dawn (June 11, 2025). “Disney, Universal sue image creator Midjourney for copyright infringement”. Reuters. Retrieved June 11, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-universal-sue-image-creator-midjourney-copyright-infringement-2025-06-11/

15. Disney and Universal sue Midjourney for AI copyright infringement https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/11/disney-universal-midjourney-ai-copyright.html

16. Vashenyak N.E. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: International Experience, Ethical Dilemmas and the Way of Regulation in Russia. International Scientific Journal “Bulletin of Science” No3 (72) VOLUME 3. MARCH 2024. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/iskusstvennyy-intellekt-i-avtorskie-prava-mezhdunarodnyy-opyt-eticheskie-dilemmy-i-put-regulirovaniya-v-rossii/viewer

17. Pleshakov E.A., Prosvirnina M.M. Problem of authorship of works created by a neural network. Education and Law No7. 2023. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problema-avtorstva-proizvedeniya-sozdannogo-neyrosetyu/viewer

18. Lutkova O.V. Legal Regulation of Participation of Artificial Intelligence and Other Generators in the Process of Creating Results Comparable to Works. Vestnik of Kutafin University (MSAL) No9, 2023.

19. Russia will discuss a ban on AI with a “threatening level of risk” — RBC https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/11/04/2025/67f7dc399a79477fdd97bf30

1. Scientific Platform “21 CENTURY” journal, # 1, April 2025, pp. 4-13, www.episs.ru; Scientific Platform “21 CENTURY” journal, # 2, May 2025, pp. 92-126, www.episs.ru. ↑
2. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023). ↑
3. Jones Day, Court Finds AI-Generated Work Not Copyrightable for Failure to Meet “Human Authorship” Requirement—But Questions Remain, Jones Day (Aug. 2023)

   https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2023/08/court-finds-aigenerated-work-not-copyrightable-for-failure-to-meet-human-authorship-requirementbut-questions-remain?utm_source=chatgpt.com ↑

4. See generally, What Does Copyright Protect?, Copyright.gov,  https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com ↑
5. Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 700 F. Supp. 3d 853 (N.D. Cal. 2023); see also, Kevin Madigan, Top Taleaways from Order in the Andersen v. Stability AI Copyright Case, Copyright Alliance (Aug. 2024), https://copyrightalliance.org/andersen-v-stability-ai-copyright-case/;

   Tal Dickstein & Edward Delman, Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Loeb&Leob LLP (Oct. 2023),

   https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2023/11/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑

6. Meta is recognized as extremist. Its activities are prohibited on the territory of Russia. ↑
7. Cm. before. Link ↑
8. Jonathan Stempel, NY Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft for infringing copyrighted works, Ruters (Dec. 2023),

   https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ny-times-sues-openai-microsoft-infringing-copyrighted-work-2023-12-27/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑

9. Ewerton Barroso, New Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 Introduced, BYU (Apr. 2024) https://copyright.byu.edu/new-generative-ai-copyright-disclosure-act-of-2024-introduced. ↑
10. Salazar Introduces the No AI Fraud Act (Jan. 2024),  https://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introduces-no-ai-fraud-act. ↑
11. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence, Topics European Parliament (Jun 2024), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑
12. EU AI Act: shaping Copyright compliance in the age of AI Innovation, KEA (Mar. 2024), https://keanet.eu/eu-ai-act-shaping-copyright-compliance-in-the-age-of-ai-innovation/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑
13. Yuqian Wang & Jessie Zhang, Beijing Internet Court Grants Copyright to AI-Generated Image for the First Time, Wolters Kluwer (Feb. 2024),  https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/02/beijing-internet-court-grants-copyright-to-ai-generated-image-for-the-first-time/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑
14. Cheryl Yu & Barbara Li, AI explained: AI regulations and PRC court decisions in China, ReedSmith (Oc. 2024), https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/10/ai-explained-ai-regulations-and-prc-court-decisions-in-china?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑

15. Negar Bondari AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights. AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights – IP & Technology Law Society Перевод c английского Microsoft Translation service

    ↑

16. Chmielewski, Dawn (June 11, 2025). “Disney, Universal sue image creator Midjourney for copyright infringement”. Reuters. Retrieved June 11, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-universal-sue-image-creator-midjourney-copyright-infringement-2025-06-11/ ↑
17. Disney and Universal sue Midjourney for AI copyright infringement https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/11/disney-universal-midjourney-ai-copyright.html ↑
18. Vashenyak N.E. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: International Experience, Ethical Dilemmas and the Way of Regulation in Russia. International Scientific Journal “Bulletin of Science” No3 (72) VOLUME 3. MARCH 2024, pp. 172-173. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/iskusstvennyy-intellekt-i-avtorskie-prava-mezhdunarodnyy-opyt-eticheskie-dilemmy-i-put-regulirovaniya-v-rossii/viewer ↑
19. Pleshakov E.A., Prosvirnina M.M. Problem of authorship of works created by a neural network. Education and Law No7. 2023, pp. 409-411. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problema-avtorstva-proizvedeniya-sozdannogo-neyrosetyu/viewer ↑
20. Lutkova O.V. Legal Regulation of the Participation of Artificial Intelligence and Other Generators in the Process of Creating Results Comparable to Works. Bulletin of Kutafin University (MSAL) No9, 2023, p.116. ↑
21. Russia will discuss a ban on AI with a “threatening level of risk” — RBC https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/11/04/2025/67f7dc399a79477fdd97bf30 ↑