Criteria for determining authorship of objects created by artificial intelligence

Modern artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are creating new challenges for the legal regulation of authorship of works created with their participation. This study is devoted to the analysis of legal criteria for determining authorship created with the help of AI, in the context of Kazakh and international legislation. The purpose of the study is to develop and substantiate the legal criteria determining the authorship of works created using AI, in order to ensure their legal regulation within the framework of Kazakh legislation and harmonization with international standards. Special attention is paid to the criteria for determining authorship, such as creativity, originality, intellectual contribution of a person and the degree of autonomy of AI in the process of creating a work. The study analyzes the traditional concepts of creativity, originality and novelty applied to works created by AI. The scientific significance of the work lies in the systematization of approaches to the legal regulation of AI works with an emphasis on clarifying the criteria of creativity and originality, as well as in developing conceptual frameworks for their integration into the national legal system. The practical significance of the research is determined by the need to form a uniform practice of applying copyright norms in the context of digitalization.

1. Grazhdanskij kodeks Respubliki Kazahstan (Osobennaja chast’) ot 1 ijulja 1999 goda No. 409-I. URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1013880 (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025 g.). (In Russian).

2. Zakon Respubliki Kazahstan ot 10 ijunja 1996 goda No. 6-I «Ob avtorskom prave i smezhnyh pravah». URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1005798 (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025 g.). (In Russian).

3. Aronov A., Irdrysheva S. (2024). Jasandy intelekt kömegımen jasalğan tuyndylarğa avtorlyq qūqyqty qorğau // Vestnik instituta zakonodatel’stva i pravovoj informacii. No. 2(77). Р. 45–62. URL: https://vestnik.zqai.kz/index.php/vestnik/article/view/1339 (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025 г.). (In Kazakh).

4. Jusupzhanov I. (2025) Pravovoe regulirovanie avtorskih prav na proizvedenija, sozdannye s ispol’zovaniem iskusstvennogo intellekta: problemy i perspektivy // Juridicheskij zhurnal SDU. No.1(1). P. 70–77. URL: https://lj.sdu.edu.kz/index.php/lj/article/view/29/21 (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025 g.). (In Russian).

5. Sesickij E.P. (2018) Komu prinadlezhat prava na rezul’taty, generiruemye sistemami iskusstvennogo intellekta? // Kopirajt. No. 4. P. 38–47. (In Russian).

6. Revinskij O.V. (2017) Pravo promyshlennoj sobstvennosti: kurs lekcij. M.: Jurservitum. 443 p. (In Russian).

7. Bernskaja konvencija ob ohrane literaturnyh i hudozhestvennyh proizvedenij ot 4 maja 1896 g. URL: https://www.wipo.int/ru/web/treaties/ip/berne/index (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025 g.). (In Russian).

8. Case C-145/10. Painer, para. 92. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:62010CJ0145 (accessed: 29.05.2025 г.). (In English).

9. (C-683/17) ECLI: EU:C: 2019:721, Cofemel v G-Star Raw [Cofemel], para. 31. // URL: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=217668&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN (accessed: 30.05.2025 г.). (In English).

10. Gaffar H., Albarashdi S. (2025) Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape // Asian Journal of International Law. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 23–46. DOI:10.1017/S2044251323000735 URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law/article/copyright-protection-for-aigenerated-works-exploring-originality-and-ownership-in-a-digital-landscape/12B8B8D836AC9DDFFF4082F7859603E3 (accessed: 01.06.2025 г.). (In English).

11. Randall D. Intellectual Property and Software: The Assumptions are Broken. 1991. URL: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5975/AIM-1328.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed: 01.06.2025). (In English).

12. Yu R. (2017) The Machine Author: What Level of Copyright Protection Is Appropriate for Fully Independent Computer-Generated Works? // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 165. P. 1245–1270. URL: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9582&context=penn_law_review (accessed: 30.05.2025). (In English).

13. Gurko A.V. (2017) Iskusstvennyj intellekt i avtorskoe pravo: vzgljad v budushhee // Intellektual’naja sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. No. 12. P. 7–18. (In Russian).

14. Matveev A.G. (2011) Rossijskaja model’ prava na neprikosnovennost’ proizvedenija // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki. No. 4. P. 91–99. (In Russian).

15. Morhat P.M. (2018) Pravo intellektual’noj sobstvennosti i iskusstvennyj intellekt: nauchnaja monografija. M.: JuNITI-DANA. 121 p. (In Russian).

16. ArtykovaA. (2023) Iskusstvennyj intellekt i avtorskoe pravo: pervyj shag v Kazahstane // Kazahstanskaja pravda. 19 okt. URL: https://kazpravda.kz/n/iskusstvennyy-intellekt-i-avtorskoe-pravo-pervyy-shag-vkazakhstane/ (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025). (In Russian).

17. Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008). URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/170844/meshwerks-inc-v-toyota-motor-sales-usa-inc/ (accessed: 01.06.2025). (In English).

18. Gravitacionnye kartiny Jemi Sheklton // Artifex. 2015. No. 5. URL: artifex.ru URL: https://artifex.ru/zhivopis/gravitacionnye-kartiny-jemi-sheklton/ (data obrashhenija: 01.06.2025). (In English).

19. Vaver D. (2002) Notions Fondamentales Du Droit D’auteur. WIPO. P. 110 –111. URL:https://books.google.ru/books?id=M6w3991thgsC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=ought+to+be+regarded+as+joint+authors+and+owners+of+the+copyright,&source=bl&ots=YJG7vGGL7z&sig=VH0LZJTZP8Oz4kLQzdOgXdOhVDY&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinv5rl6O7bAhXBhKYKHSbiBlAQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=ought%20to%20be%20regarded%20as%20joint%20authors%20and%20owners%20of%20the%20copyright%2C&f=false (accessed: 30.05.2025). (In English).

20. Penguin Books v. New christian church, full end., 262 F. Supp. 2d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/262/251/2391723/ (accessed: 01.06.2025). (In English)