محسن لعل علیزاده

The inception of artificial intelligence (AI) as a transformative force in modern society has presented novel challenges across various domains, particularly within the realm of intellectual property (IP) law. Traditionally, IP laws have been predicated on the notion that creativity and invention are inherently human attributes, thereby granting protection exclusively to works generated by human authors. However, the rapid evolution and sophistication of AI has alleviated the gap between human and machine-generated outputs, challenging the foundational principles upon which IP law is built. As AI systems increasingly demonstrate capabilities akin to human creativity, such as generating artworks, music, literature, and even innovative technological solutions, the question of ownership and protection of these AI-generated works becomes more pressing.
     Historically, the attribution of authorship in computer-generated outputs was straightforward; the person who legally utilized the computer system was considered the author. However, with AI's capacity to autonomously generate complex and creative works, this traditional approach to authorship is no longer adequate. AI’s role in the creation process varies from being a mere tool used by human creators to being an independent creator of works with minimal human intervention. As AI continues to develop and integrate into more aspects of society, the implications for IP law become increasingly complex and far-reaching.
     This paper seeks to explore these complexities and offer a comprehensive analysis of the ownership issues related to AI-generated works. The discussion delves into the theoretical underpinnings of IP law, the economic implications of AI innovations, and the potential need for legal reforms to address the challenges posed by non-human creators. By examining these issues, the article aims to provide clarity and propose solutions that balance the interests of creators, innovators, and society at large.

The central research question guiding this study is: who owns the intellectual property rights to works generated by artificial intelligence? This question is further subdivided into several key inquiries:     Can AI be recognized as the owner of the intellectual property it generates?
     If not, who should be considered the rightful owner of these AI-generated works—the developer, the user, or some other party?
     How do existing IP frameworks across different legal systems address or fail to address the issue of AI-generated works?
     What are the potential economic and commercial implications of the lack of clear ownership rights for AI-generated works?
     These questions are critical as they address the foundational elements of IP law and its application to emerging technologies. The resolution of these questions will have significant implications not only for legal theory but also for the practical aspects of innovation, investment, and the development of AI technologies.

The research is grounded in the hypothesis that the ownership of AI-generated works should be legally recognized to promote innovation and economic growth. This hypothesis is based on the premise that recognizing ownership rights in AI-generated works is essential for several reasons:     Incentivizing innovation: legal recognition of ownership rights is crucial for encouraging further investment in AI. Without such recognition, the risk of investing in AI may outweigh the potential rewards, leading to a slowdown in technological advancement.
     Economic Fairness: companies and individuals who invest significant resources into developing AI technologies should have their investments protected. If AI-generated works are not protected, these entities could face unfair competition from others who freely use their innovations without compensation.
     Legal Clarity: The current ambiguity in IP law regarding AI-generated works could lead to legal disputes and inconsistencies in court rulings. Establishing clear ownership rules will provide legal certainty and reduce the potential for litigation.

This research adopts a comparative-doctrinal methodology to analyze the treatment of AI-generated works across different legal systems. The study is structured to explore both theoretical and practical dimensions of the issue, with a focus on how various jurisdictions are addressing—or failing to address—the ownership of AI-generated intellectual property.
     Comparative Analysis: The research begins with a comparative analysis of IP laws in several jurisdictions, including the United States, European Union, Japan, and others. By examining how different legal systems approach the question of AI-generated works, the study aims to identify commonalities, differences, and potential gaps in the current legal frameworks.
     Doctrinal Approach: The doctrinal approach involves a detailed examination of legal texts, case law, and statutes relevant to IP law and AI-generated works. This approach is essential for understanding how existing laws might be interpreted or adapted to address the new challenges posed by AI. The research critically analyzes legal doctrines such as authorship, originality, and creativity, assessing their applicability to AI-generated works.
     Economic and Investment Justifications: In addition to the legal analysis, the research also considers the economic and investment implications of recognizing or not recognizing ownership rights in AI-generated works. This aspect of the study involves an analysis of market trends, investment patterns in AI technologies, and the potential economic impact of different legal approaches to AI-generated works.

The analysis of AI-generated works under current intellectual property (IP) laws reveals a significant gap between the traditional legal frameworks and the challenges posed by emerging technologies. The results of this study indicate that existing IP laws are inadequate to address the complexities associated with works created by artificial intelligence, primarily because these laws are predicated on the notion of human authorship. The inability of traditional IP law to recognize non-human entities as creators or authors leads to significant ambiguity regarding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works.
     Ownership and Authorship of AI-Generated Works: One of the key findings of this paper is that the traditional concept of authorship, which ties the creation of a work to human ingenuity and effort, is becoming increasingly problematic in the context of AI-generated works. As AI systems become more autonomous in their creative processes, the distinction between human-created and machine-generated works blurs. This blurring raises the question of whether the law should adapt to recognize AI as a potential author or whether the law should continue to focus on the human elements in the creation process.
     It is shown that the British model, which grants ownership rights to the person who enables the operation of the AI, appears to be the most practical and effective approach. This model ensures that the entities investing in AI technology are rewarded for their contributions, thereby encouraging continued innovation and investment. By recognizing the programmer, user, or entity that initiates the AI’s creative process as the owner of the resulting work, the law can maintain the incentive structures that underpin IP law.
     However, this approach is challenging. One of the key concerns is determining the extent of human involvement necessary to claim ownership. In scenarios where the human contribution is minimal—such as merely pressing a button to initiate the AI’s creative process—there is debate over whether this should be sufficient to warrant full ownership rights. This issue becomes even more complex when considering AI systems that are capable of learning and evolving independently of human input, potentially leading to the creation of works without any direct human intervention.
     Economic and Legal Implications: The research also highlights the significant economic and legal implications of not adequately addressing the issue of AI-generated works. Without clear ownership rights, the economic incentives for investing in AI technologies could be undermined. Companies and individuals may be less willing to invest in AI research and development if the outputs of their investments are not protected under IP law. This could slow down technological progress and innovation, particularly in sectors where AI has the potential to drive significant advancements.
     Additionally, the lack of clear legal guidelines could lead to an increase in litigation as parties seek to assert ownership over AI-generated works. The study suggests that resolving disputes on a case-by-case basis, as seen in judicial practices like the "Nova Productions Ltd. v. Mazooma Games Ltd." case, may provide a temporary solution. However, relying on case-by-case adjudication is likely to result in inconsistent outcomes and could contribute to legal uncertainty, making it difficult for businesses to navigate the landscape of AI-generated works.
     Judicial and Legislative Approaches: The research finds that judicial approaches to AI-generated works have thus far been limited and inconsistent. Courts have generally been hesitant to extend IP protection to non-human creators, often defaulting to traditional interpretations of authorship and creativity. However, as AI becomes more prevalent, there is a growing recognition that legislative reform may be necessary to address these challenges systematically.
     One possible legislative approach is to create a new category of IP that specifically addresses AI-generated works. This new category could establish criteria for determining ownership based on the level of human involvement, the nature of the AI’s creative process, and the economic impact of the work. Such legislation would need to balance the need for innovation and investment with the principles of fairness and equity, ensuring that all stakeholders—developers, users, and society at large—are adequately protected and rewarded.

In conclusion, the rapid development of AI technologies presents significant challenges to the current intellectual property framework, particularly in the context of ownership and authorship of AI-generated works. The study underscores the necessity of adapting IP laws to address these challenges, as the traditional concept of human authorship becomes increasingly difficult to apply in the digital age.
     The British model, which attributes ownership to the person or entity that enables the AI’s creative process, emerges as a viable solution. This approach balances the need to protect investments in AI technology with the recognition that human involvement in the creative process may vary significantly. By granting ownership rights to those who initiate the AI’s operations, the law can ensure that innovation continues to be incentivized while also providing a clear legal framework for AI-generated works.
     However, the study also recognizes that this approach has its limitations. The minimal human intervention required in some AI-generated works raises questions about the adequacy of this model in all cases. There is a need for further refinement of the legal framework to address scenarios where AI operates with significant autonomy, potentially creating works with little to no human input.
     The economic implications of failing to address these issues are considerable. Without clear ownership rights, the incentive for investment in AI technologies could be diminished, slowing the pace of innovation and potentially stifling the development of new technologies that have the potential to benefit society as a whole. Moreover, the lack of legal clarity could lead to increased litigation, creating further uncertainty and potentially hindering the growth of industries reliant on AI.
     As AI continues to evolve, so too must the laws that govern the ownership and protection of the works it generates. The study suggests that a combination of legislative reform and judicial interpretation will be necessary to create a robust and adaptable IP framework capable of addressing the unique challenges posed by AI-generated works. By doing so, the law can ensure that the benefits of AI technology are realized while also protecting the rights and interests of all stakeholders involved.

Metaverse is a virtual space where users can interact and trade with digital assets. However, the legal challenges of businesses in the Metaverse are still evolving and new dimensions are being added every day. Metaverse will affect businesses fundamentally both in terms of content and in terms of the processes of implementing activities. Since all economic and managerial activities are administered on a legal basis, managing in the Metaverse also follows the same rule and we must know the legal requirements of working in this space. Some recent metaverse Challenges, such as intellectual property infringement, show that the field is in urgent need of commercial legal foundations. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the legal challenges of businesses in this growing environment. The purpose of this research is to examine the legal challenges related to Metaverse in the business environment and to identify and provide some potential solutions to address those challenges.

Studying various prior researches, six basic challenges of the business for users and companies active in Metaverse have been identified, including intellectual property, privacy, legal jurisdiction, virtual identity, cybercrimes and terms of service.

The research method is analytic and survey. The statistical population is academic business and law experts who are familiar with Metaverse. Sampling was based on by judgmental or purposeful method. The aforementioned experts were asked to participate in research on the legal challenges of businesses in Metaverse using the Delphi method. Delphi is used for prospective studies and identification of unknown dimensions and indicators of a situation. 15 experts took part in 3 round of Delphi method. After three rounds of surveys in the form of a questionnaire, the viewpoints of experts were analyzed using in SPSS software. In the final stage, the Kendall coefficient was calculated as 0.763, which shows that the members of the Delphi panel have reached a relative agreement.

The results of the surveys indicate that the main challenges identified in the field of business law in Metaverse, in order of importance, include intellectual property rights, privacy, jurisdiction, cybercrimes, terms of service, and virtual identity. The most important challenge for businesses in Metaverse was identified as intellectual property rights. Propertis are created every moment on Metaverse, many of which are created by users of these platforms. These assets are sometimes much more valuable than assets in the physical world. The question is that who will be the main owner of these assets? The second challenge was the privacy problem. Since the data of users and customers is published in the public space of Metaverse, a distinction should be made between the data that the user publishes knowingly and the data that is published unintentionally by the platform or other users, and policies should be set to protect user privacy. The third challenge is the jurisdiction of disputes and the application of laws. Considering the global nature of the Metaverse, which country's laws should be used to apply the laws is a problem that needs to be thought about. The fourth identified challenge is determining the terms of service provided by companies and platform providers to users. Determining the terms of providing services to users is a kind of contract that informs both users and administrators about the conditions of presence and use of the platform. The last Challenge is the virtual identity of users. These identities, known as avatars, can live in the Metaverse, own and shop, travel, interact with other virtual identities, and even commit crimes. These virtual users and customers must accept responsibility for their actions

In the business world, considering the metaverse and virtual worlds, there should be more specific international laws regarding the rights of different stakeholders, because this world is a relatively new concept and technology that mankind has not had any experience with so far. However, some current laws and regulations in the business space, such as intellectual property laws, data privacy laws, and online conduct laws, may also apply to activities in the Metaverse domain. An important suggestion is to create new rules and regulations that suit the unique characteristics of the metaverse, such as virtual property ownership rules, intellectual property rights, and user privacy in the metaverse. In the recommendations section, also the need for taking an interdisciplinary approach to understand the legal challenges of the metaverse and the importance of creating specific laws, regulations, and policies that balance the competing interests of various stakeholders are emphasizes. Another suggestion is the cooperation of various business organizations and stakeholders in developing standards and best practices for Metaverse, which promotes stability and fairness in various virtual environments and builds trust. Also, it is suggested that education and awareness should be pursued seriously to help users and beneficiaries understand their rights and responsibilities in this new environment.

In addition to domestic law considerations and various national security concerns, the issue of drones raises various legal issues internationally and is subject to various branches of international law, including international aviation law, human rights and human rights. International is humanitarian. The exercise of the sovereignty of the states as a supreme and superior power in establishing internal laws is one of the features that has affected air rights, which is in conflict with the international aspect of aviation, that is, the states by exercising their sovereignty, They establish the relevant regulations within the framework of domestic law, while the plane crosses the borders and enters the territory of other countries due to its high speed. For this reason, the issues related to it naturally have international dimensions. In the upcoming research, we intend to examine the responsibility of governments towards drones in the international criminal law system, and the current research method is a descriptive-analytical method, using a library method and a survey of the field. It has been written.

In recent decades, insults to religious sanctities have occurred in various forms in Western countries. Meanwhile, in the media, more than other forms of religious insult and hatred, anti-Islamic cartoons, burning and tearing of the Quran have been included. Public reactions caused by intolerance and tolerance are increasing all over the world. Such behaviors are more widespread in times of political tensions. Although monotheistic religions believe that respect for others should be respected; However, the humanistic and non-monotheistic views of most of the western countries have a utilitarian approach to values ​​and what is beneficial to them is considered authentic. International human rights standards and documents from the United Nations Charter to the Rabat Action Plan (2012) and the Beirut Declaration (2017); Not only has it been clear in condemning any propaganda inciting religious hatred, but it has also committed governments to limit freedom of expression in response to such actions and propaganda. The most basic and simplest form of tolerance or religious tolerance is recognizing the rights of others and respecting them because of their personality and identity. Freedom of speech is a collective right that must include respect for the rights, dignity and honor of others, public order and good morals. Ignoring these conditions can endanger the peace and security of societies. Behaviors that encourage hatred and the crimes that result from it, confront societies with threats to individual rights, dignity and human equality, and will result in strengthening the tension between social groups, disrupting peace and public order, and jeopardizing peaceful coexistence. The response to these actions must be firmly established within the framework of international human rights norms. The results of international reports and their analysis show that in dealing with anti-religious actions, discourse benefiting from information creates knowledge, and knowledge and understanding can deal with fear and prejudice.

The virtual world with its unique features allows people to explore digital spaces and interact with other users. Therefore, Metaverse has many advantages for business development. Metaverse is a tool for developing human life experiences, an unlimited and general scope and a virtual life space beyond our imaginations. This area started with the video games industry, but it was not limited to it and quickly included other aspects of life. Unfortunately, the requirements and platforms of Metaverse have not grown as this world is expanding. Metaverse is a world, whose principles, development and management have not been determined and explained, and how to monitor and even its shortcomings and inadequacies have not been fully defined. One of the most basic of these requirements, which is the basis of other activities, is the legal and legal requirements of this new world. The purpose of this article is to examine emerging legal issues in the metaverse and presenting new approaches to obtain solutions in this field. Specifically, the issue of ownership and intellectual property, NFTs and taxation, and liability rights were examined. Blockchain and smart contracts can be used to legitimize many of the necessary property protections; In particular, intellectual property should be used in the Metaverse ecosystem. NFTs are considered as examples of investment contracts and are considered as taxable securities. Regarding the legal responsibility of avatars in Metaverse, while identifying "electronic personality" for them, According to the degree of dependence of the avatar on the producer, the theories of "strict liability " and "direct liability" have been proposed. Despite this, it seems; that the ability to adapt the rules and regulations to the changing events in the metaverse and to change the approach inherent in the rules to manage this world are considered as the biggest legal challenges in this field. It must be emphasized that law is monitoring emerging events and challenges in metaverse.

One of the most important ways to prevent the spread of corruption and fraud, both at the macro and organizational levels, is whistleblowing. However, whistleblowing has not been never simple action, and whistleblowers are constantly facing pressure, threats, harassment, and even revenge. Therefore, they are required to receive effective and appropriate organizational and legal support.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

Various studies have mentioned different incentives and barriers to whistleblowing. One of the key factors in encouraging employees to disclose violations is perceived organizational support. If employees feel that the organization supports their disclosure actions, this motivation will help them overcome other barriers and whistle. But the factor that has received less attention in this regard, especially in Iran, is the legal protections perceived by the employees. Due to the ignorance of employees about the legal consequences of whistling in Iran, probably one of the most important obstacles to whistleblowing is the lack of protection by law. Therefore, the current research deals with both organizational and legal support and examines their role in persuading employees to expose the organization's violations. Therefore, the current research examines the effect of perceived legal and organizational support on employees' whistleblowing intentions. The whistleblowing intentions comprised six types of offenses including theft, wasting organizational resources, mismanagement, safety issues, sexual harassment, discrimination, and deliberate violation of the law.

The current research is an applied study based on the survey method. The statistical population encompassed all the employees of private banks in Iran. Due to the uncertainty of the statistical population volume, according to Morgan's table, the online questionnaire was distributed among 384 employees of private banks. The questionnaire's reliability was approved using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, and its construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis.

The skewness and kurtosis values for all the variables were from +2 to -2, confirming their normality of distribution. Results for the correlation test indicated that organizational support and legal support were significantly correlated, but there was no significant correlation between whistle intention with legal and organizational support. Detailed results showed that the level of perceived legal and organizational support and whistleblowing intention was almost low. Structural equation modeling was conducted in Amos software to test the research hypotheses. Hypothesis testing indicated that organizational and legal support significantly affected whistle intention. Furthermore, research results indicated a significant difference in whistle intention for different types of violations.

CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS:

This study had a quantitative approach to employees' views on support and their willingness to whistle. Given the relative novelty of this issue, especially at the organizational level, it can certainly be useful and interesting to adopt a qualitative approach and discover deeper motivations of employees. The present study did examine the employees' behavioral intentions but not their actual behavior. Future studies are suggested to examine the actual whistleblowing behavior by adopting a comparative approach. In general, there is a lack of studies to explain the general position of organizational whistling in both the private and public sectors of the country, and there are no reliable statistics about whistling corruption by employees and the fate of whistleblowers.

Digitization is a way to better organize and present information that will make it easier for the general public to access it. Nevertheless, intellectual property rights based on author-centered perspectives pose challenges for libraries; To the extent that today it is a necessity to say that these rights need an intellectual revolution to always ensure a balance between the rights of the owners of works and society.
Traditionally, when a library buys a book from a publisher, according to the "first sale or exhaustion" theory, the purchased copy is no longer subject to copyright control rules. Lending books in libraries is based on exactly the same legal basis. But this basis is not very effective in lending books to e-libraries. So from the point of view of some, At present, copyright law presupposes the or exhaustion of rights only to tangible objects, such as printed books, and vice versa; The status of digital works is ambiguous. The main goal of the present research is to resolve these ambiguities as much as possible by categorizing the sources.

This research is practical in terms of purpose and qualitative-descriptive in terms of the method of data collection and analysis.

Books and digital works Digital libraries are divided into three categories in terms of the status of publishing rights and especially the legal status of access to them; First, copyrighted works (sponsored); Second, Orphan Works And finally, Out-Of-Print Works. The solution that strengthens digital libraries is to assign Orphan and Out-Of-Print Works to the public domain. The transformation of these works as part of public ownership does not sever the connection of the work with its creator, and in fact, these works generally have a family and this family (society) will enjoy it and benefit from its benefits.

The existence of a comprehensive regulatory framework supporting online digital libraries and protecting and expanding public knowledge and awareness is a fundamental need and necessity. Today, digital libraries are considered the main means of access to knowledge and awareness, and removing monopolies and enriching digital libraries is very decisive in this field.
It is necessary to review the strict laws of authors' rights in favor of the production of knowledge and information and public culture, as well as the expansion of copyright laws in order to help the production of knowledge, information and culture. Many legal proposals have been submitted to resolve the issue of copyrighted works. These proposals include, Legislative amendment of copyright law, special library exemption and Courts’ intervention to uphold digital exhaustion.

In the realm of rights and supports for victims, many innovations in the new act of Criminal Procedure, following the new approach to criminal justice such as restorative justice, and supportive victimology have been permitted. We have already observed this approach in the Statute and the procedure of the International Criminal Court, which is the result of the interaction of legal representation in most countries, especially the two great systems, i.e. common law and Roman and Germanic. A comparative study shows that Iranian legislator, despite detecting new rights for the victim, is still encountering shortcomings such as the lack of explicit identification of legal entities as the victim, ignoring the right to have a lawyer for the victim in the investigation stage, not enjoying the appropriate medical and psychological care and support, not consideration the closed and the wrapping notifications in order to keeping hidden and secret identities of victims and lack of necessary sanctions for the violation of the rights provided for them. Yet, the biggest challenge for the Court is incoherence and not formulating the active participation of victims in the prosecution and investigation stages and their lack of proper legal guidance.

In special criminal tribunals before the establishment of the Court, in the first generation of tribunals, Nuremberg and Tokyo, Unfortunately, not only is there any notes to the rights and protections of victims, but also no mention of the term "victim" is seen. In the second generation trials, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, although there were some improvements compared to previous courts, but they did not dedicate a place more than witnesses to victims.International Criminal Court, influenced by the developments and experiences from previous international tribunals, has considered relatively broad participatory rights for victims in different stages and with different forms. Despite high limitations in victim's participation, the court jurisprudence has supported a broad interpretation of participatory rights. However, the judges are generally determining the deadlines, procedures and participation.

Victim participation refers to a state in which the victims are granted meaningful right to actively participate in the different stages of proceedings and to present their views and concerns. Truth finding، reconciliation، norm stabilization، and restoration of the rule of law are considered among the most important objectives of participation. Rome Statute has not recognized a real right for initiation of the proceedings for the victims and، in this stage، their participatory rights in initiation of investigations is very limited. But compared to this stage، the International Criminal Court has accepted relatively wider participatory rights for the preliminary investigations’ stage. However، Rome Statute and other provisions of court give little guidelines about the nature of «participation»، details، conditions، and the way of its application to judges. Generality، vagueness، complexity and contradictory nature of the Rome Statute and other provisions of the court on the victims'' participation، particularly about investigation، allow the prosecutors and judges to make decisions with a broad approach with the possibility of imposing personal preferences. The lack of consistency and coherent function and procedures of the court in victim participation، in more than a decade of its establishment، indicate an almost symbolic participation for the victims، regarding the irregular participation and enjoyment of correct، and adequate guidance and assistance.

Since resorting to force and conventional war using military hardware cannot be easily justified, the west, especially the United States, has launched a religious and cultural invasion along with the expansion of their military power. The first question in this study is whether soft war against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran is a reality or it is, as some believe, the “hallucination of plot”? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has made a great attempt to represent Islamic countries and groups as the main threat to world peace and security. Based on abundant evidence, we believe that the hallucination of plot theory is formulated merely to mislead public opinion and induce inactivity. The other question raised in this paper is whether western computer games, used as soft war tools, have had a negative influence on the religious attitude and beliefs of people, especially the youth and teenagers, or not? In its soft war against Islam and the Shiite, through computer games, the west has tried to direct the children and teenagers’ way of thinking towards its own standpoint, and has been somehow successful. Although the west has been relatively successfully in its soft war, we believe that by relying on our technological and ideological potentials we can oppose this phenomenon and disseminate the Islamic ideals throughout the world.