مالکیت معنوی

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.

Today, the emergence of intellectual property and its dominance over inventions to protect the rights of inventors seems undeniable; however, the protective capacity of intellectual property rights for inventions among technical experts is generally faced with doubts in some areas. Among these areas are military inventions, which are seriously questioned in practice by some proponents of military inventions.In this study, we aim to examine the jurisprudence of the positions of those in favor of and against the registration of military patents-as the first step towards the intellectual protection of military inventions-by citing library sources and using an analytical-descriptive method. A study of the works of those who have written in this field shows that two general views have been expressed in this regard: Some believe that military inventions do not need to be patented because their patenting entails the possibility of revealing military secrets and therefore entails the risks of violating national security. Others believe that military inventions, like other inventions, need to be patented because, first, the possibility of revealing military secrets is greatly reduced if the patenting process is confidential; and second, some military inventions are not particularly sensitive, so they do not pose a risk to national security and, as a result, their patenting is not problematic.

Although the development of cyber space and new technologies has brought countless advantages and merits to human life, but it is considered a threat to the life of cyber space and one of the rights of intellectual property called hijab. Since hijab as an outer covering and chastity as an inner covering play a significant role in the social and psychological security of the society, so it is necessary to recognize and support it as an intellectual property right. In addition, identifying and supporting hijab and chastity in the position of respecting privacy and observing it is a preventive measure in the occurrence of social harm. Islamic teachings also forbid showing off in public, as it harms human beauty and real perfection as a spiritual right. From a comparative point of view, and especially the common law, trademark weakening and abuse of other unregistered trademarks are provided in the laws, which they can be an appropriate sanction in order to support the owners of creative ideas such as hijab and chastity. The present article, with the help of descriptive-analytical method, tries to highlight the protective role of the law on hijab and chastity as a right of intellectual property and privacy.

Intellectual property rights, as one of the new examples of property in the light of the postmodernism atmosphere and the rule of fuzzy logic on the relations between legal subjects, have created many complications in the legal systems. These complications have caused challenges both in the fields of formal and substantive rights. The purpose of the current research is to identify the nature of security measures in the field of intellectual property in Iran's legal system and Imami jurisprudence. The findings of the current research, which were collected by descriptive-analytical method and library tools, show that, in proportion to the plurality and pluralism governing the examples of intellectual property, appropriate and efficient measures have not been designed and created in Iran's legal system. Provisions for protection of intellectual property rights in Iran's legal system can be divided into two main categories: the first category is general provisions that are in the form of institutions and general forms of procedure such as demand protection order and temporary order; The second category of special measures that are considered case by case in the field of trade secrets, trademarks, patents. Due to the lack of identification of new examples of intellectual property, it is necessary for the legislator to move towards designing and approving specific provisions for new examples of intellectual property by amending the existing laws.

One of the significant matters in research is the issue of copyright. In spite of the long history of intellectual property, it has not been officially debated in Islam, but Islamic jurists have started discussing and researching it. This research aims to scrutinize the juridical and legal foundations of copyright and its intellectual property. Via inspecting jurisprudential texts and using the library method, the results were attained that the copyright or authorship is the exclusive right to exploit a work of literature, art, or science for the author or the person to whom the author has assigned this right and this right is granted according to the law. Copyright is property and can be transferred to another. The transactional nature of the mentioned rights is due to work and benefit and is accepted by Islamic jurists. The difference is in the private ownership of the rights because there is no connection between transactional nature and ownership. On the other hand, based on numerous evidences such as no harm, fulfilling contracts, etc., the legality of the mentioned rights is inferred that they are mentioned as basic conditions, and as well as the contract, they are mandatory conditions in addition to the contract, and its accessories must also be adhered to.

One of the most valuable concepts in today's world is to solve the concern of intellectual property in the real space and especially in the digital space. Because in order to solve the concern of intellectual property, it is necessary to offer up-to-date solutions on the platform of blockchain, so that in their form this space of intellectual property rights becomes a safe and secure area. In order to implement this, today non-fungible tokens are used to acquire the right of ownership of a real or digital asset under the title of a digital document. And blockchain, by creating NFT tokens that are created and moved on the blockchain of digital currencies, has made the artists of the world, including painters, architects, musicians, digital artists, graphic artists, animators and filmmakers, who are mainly created from works of art. They earned their own money. Or sometimes they gave away their intellectual property in order to earn money from works of art. They were always faced with the problem of copying works and the ineffectiveness of copyright laws, as well as the problem of selling fake works and mediation of works of art, to find a special solution. This research seeks to explain the solution to the concern of intellectual property in the real and digital space. Therefore, in this research, we seek to analyze the use of NFT tokens and its impact on intellectual property by taking inspiration from similar materials with a descriptive-analytical method. enactment of appropriate legislation, systematic foundation and creation of desire in governmental and non-governmental institutions to use non-proprietary tokens in further protection of intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property can be found almost everywhere, in creative works such as books, films, music, sound recordings, art, software, and even in everyday objects like cars, computers, pharmaceuticals, and industrial and commercial designs and trademarks. Society supports and appreciates the benefits derived from intellectual property and those who dedicate their time and resources to fostering innovation and developing knowledge. This support helps prevent the brain drain of the country's talented minds. The design of the intellectual property system benefits society in various ways. By providing criminal protections for this system, society can achieve the enrichment of public knowledge and culture, support for fair competition, economic growth enhancement, the sustainability of innovation and creativity, technological and cultural advancements, and, most importantly, public benefit, order, and the proper exercise of rights. Therefore, this article examines criminal guarantees against intellectual property violations in domestic law.

Abandonment is one of the jurisprudential rules that is also reflected in subject law of Iran, however it has not been investigated as it deserves. Abandonment is the relinquishment of possesion and if it is not applied within the framework of law, it will create liability. The purpose of present study is to express abandonment of real estate,properties and its  consequent interests in Iranian law.
Method and Materials: The present study is descriptive_ analytical and library method has been used to investigate abandonment of real estate, properties and its privileges.
Ethical Considerations: In present study, text originality, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.
Abandonment is not just disposal of disorder properties but it has some requirements, first there should be no legal prohibition for abandonment, second, if someone else has a right to a property, the owner cannot abandon it. As a result, properties and benefits can be realized according to the conditions.
As a result of abandonment, person's ownership of properties is lost and property becomes permissible property. abandonment of benefit and the rights arising from property and real estate are also accepted.

The free flow of information faces challenges from two sides; The incompatibility of the right to free access to information with the right to own information, both of which are confirmed by human rights documents and international law and the effect of free dissemination of information on of "sovereignty" even though both are supported by international law.

This research is theoretical and based on descriptive-analytical method. The method of collecting information is library-based and by referring to documents, books and articles.

The upcoming research has firstly proven that the aforementioned incompatibility is not a conflict of rights, but rather a conflict in the enforcement position. Then, he has presented three solutions for the conflict between the right of "free access to information" and the right of "ownership of information".

Ethical Considerations: 

In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

In order to solve the conflict between the right to "disseminate information" and "sovereignty", it is possible to combine the two theories of "technological determinism" and "social constructionism". Finally, none of the rights of "dissemination of information" and "sovereignty" are absolute, but the sovereignty of governments must be considered in the process of disseminating information, and human rights and humanitarian rights must be respected in the process of exercising sovereignty.

Intellectual property is one of the types of property that is respected both in jurisprudence and in law, and the guarantee of many legal, criminal and registered enforcements is foreseen in order to prevent infringement of those rights. Therefore, intellectual property has created a special place for itself, along with tangible properties, and on the other hand, its financial and spiritual value has also played a significant role in raising its status, and finally these factors have led to the formulation of many laws regarding intellectual property, which are the result of intellectual property. On the other hand, it is necessary to mention that intellectual property is divided into two branches, intellectual property and industrial property, and each of them has seen its own field and legal development, and the dependence of countries on each other and their commercial relations cause the increasing development of intellectual property in countries, has become. As a result, it should be noted that the traditional division of financial rights into objective rights and religious rights has been changed in new and contemporary laws, and intellectual property rights have been added as the third category of financial rights.

Article 61 of The TRIPS Agreement on Guarantee of Criminal Enforcement, the existence of a dispute settlement body and the obligation of the member states of the Organization to legislate and implement national laws with TRIPS,indicate a minimum criminal guarantee. However, it seems that the mere reform of the laws, regardless of the structural reform of the countries, will leave this support in an aura of ambiguity and will lead the countries to the TRIPS Plus process. However, a review of the jurisprudence related to the field of criminal guarantee indicates that the agreement and this organ is a positive step in bringing countries in line with intellectual property standards..