Replacing Criterion of Creativity with Criterion of Investment for Results Created by Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Artificial intelligence plays a significant role in automation, minimizing human intervention in fields such as medicine, art, and law. Despite the historically close relationship between art and technology, generative AI has expanded the potential for creative activity. A sufficient catalyst for this process has been the proliferation of pre-trained AI systems, that have accelerated development of technologies in natural language processing and visual content generation. The development of artificial intelligence determines a revision of established doctrinal approaches in intellectual property. The study aims to provide a justification for the legal protection of results generated using artificial intelligence. The key legal risk in the field is the lack of legal grounds for granting protection to such results under de lege lata regulation. Current “silence” of the legislator regarding objects created by artificial intelligence exacerbates the issue of legal uncertainty. At the same time, there is a significant risk that artificial intelligence itself will infringe the exclusive rights of third parties. Beyond intellectual property rights, objects created by artificial intelligence, may be unreliable and misleading, as well as violate personal data laws. These challenges highlight the need to adapt legal frameworks to new digital realities. The relevance of the study stems from the dilemma facing legislators: to recognize artificial intelligence as sui generis legal personality or to modify the protection mechanism by shifting creativity criterion within copyright law to an investment criterion within related law. The aim of the research is to resolve this dichotomy. The methodological basis of the work is based on comparative legal and formal logical methods. The scholar novelty lies in the comprehensive analysis of the hypothesis regarding the transition from the creativity criterion to the investment criterion. The article demonstrates that modifying the copyright protection mechanism by shifting the creativity criterion within copyright law to the investment criterion within related rights represents the most preferable vector of legal policy.
References
Balashova A.I. (2023) Legal Regime of Results of Artificial Intelligence Activities: Unity and Differentiation of Approaches. Zhurnal Suda po intellektual’nym pravam=Journal of the Court on Intellectual Property Rights, no. 3, pp. 190–206 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2023_3_20
Iglesias M. (2021) Intellectual property and artificial intelligence. A literature overview. Luxemburg: EU Publications Office, p. 14. Available at: URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC119102 (accessed: 04.06.2025)
Ivanyushkin I.A. (2019) Artificial Intelligence: Prospects for Sociocultural Transformations. Vestnik Moskovskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Filosofskie mauki=Bulletin of Moscow Pedagogical University. Philosophical Sciences, no. 4, pp. 10–20 (in Russ.)
Kalyatin V.O. (2022) Definition of Subject of Rights on Results of Intellectual Activity Created using Artificial Intelligence and its Impact on Civil Legislation. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki=Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 24–50 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2022.4.24.50
Lukina G.U., Kuprina E.Y. (2023) Reasoning About the Concept of “Artistic Intent”. Khudozhestvennaya kul’tura=Artistic Culture, no. 4, pp. 12–33 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.51678/2226-0072-2023-4-12-33
Milyukov S.A. (2025) AI-created Objects as Objects of Copyright and Related Rights. Zhurnal Suda po intellektual’nym pravam=Journal of the Intellectual Property Court, no.1, pp. 63–73 (in Russ.)
Ogorodnikova K.S. (2021) Issue of Originality of a Work in Copyright. Voprosy rossiyskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava=Issues of Russian and International Law, vol. 11, pp. 60–67 (in Russ.)
Papadopoulou A. (2021) Creativity in Crisis: Are the Creations of Artificial Intelligence Worth Protecting? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, no. 3, pp. 408–418.
Picht P.G., Thouvenin F. (2023) AI and IP: Theory to Policy and back again — Policy and Research Recommendations at the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 123–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01344-5
Poduzova E.B. (2023) User Agreement, Confidentiality Agreement: Content in the Context of Using Artificial Intelligence Technologies. Aktual’nyye problemy rossiyskogo prava=Issues of Russian Law, no. 2, pp. 71–78 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2023.147.2.071-078
Pushkarev A.V. (2017) Philosophical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence: Candidate of Philosophical Sciences Summary. Ufa, 20 p. (in Russ.)
Rozhkova M.A. (2024) Differences between License Contract and User Agreement. Zhurnal Suda po intellektual’nym pravam=Journal of the Intellectual Property Court, no. 4, pp. 121–133 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2024_4_12
Rusakov S.S. (2024) Early Heidegger and Relationship between Subject and Dasein. Izvestiya Tul’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki=Bulletin of Tula State University. Humanitarian Sciences, no. 2, pp. 143–151 (in Russ.)
Shchukina A.E. (2020) User Agreement: License Contract vs. Contract for Provision of Services. Available at: URL: https://shorturl.at/YbbU5 (accessed: 03.11.2025) (in Russ.)
Watiktinnakorn C. (2023) Blurring the Lines: How AI is Redefining Artistic Ownership and Copyright. Discover AI, pp. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00088-y
Copyright (c) 2026 Pakshin P.K.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Licensing, Copyright, Open Access and Repository Policy.
