It is a crystal-clear fact that technology is constantly changing and developing, especially with the effect of Web 3.0. In the face of these developments, the legal system often adopts an abstaining approach and is deliberately late in regulating new technologic areas. The underlying reason for this is thought to be by many professionals in the legal field to regulate the technologic areas only with framework regulations without hindering the developing technology with the help of law. One of these areas is artificial intelligence, which the legal system has not touched much yet, but has led to great legal debates, especially in terms of law of persons. In this article, we would like to approach the effects of artificial intelligence on intellectual and industrial property law from the point that it is a creator of intellectual and industrial properties and it is determined the right ownership.
Products with artificial intelligence that we use in all areas of our lives can sometimes transform the data they have accumulated in their memories into meaningful data and can create works of art such as musical works, cinema works, etc. Whether artificial intelligence is acceptable as an owner or creator is one of the most controversial issues in the legal world recently. Because most legal systems have adopted that the creator and owner of works must be a natural person. In the light of mostly common current legal regulations, it is thought that artificial intelligence cannot be accepted as a creator and owner of work. On the other hand, of course, it is also possible to make regulations where artificial intelligence is accepted as owner and creator. If artificial intelligence is accepted as a owner, who the legal side is must also be determined in violations of rights that artificial intelligence will commit or in violations of rights against artificial intelligence. There are also different ideas in the doctrine that the creator or user of artificial intelligence or the public should be accepted as the owner of works instead. We think that clearer solutions can be generated in this area when the general law principle regarding the personality of artificial intelligence becomes clear.
The biggest effect of artificial intelligence, which can be seen today, is that it facilitates the determination of right ownership in intellectual and industrial property rights. For example, when you secure by patent an invention, you can question whether the subject of this patent is an innovative invention, or you can prove that you produced it first with the help of artificial intelligence. In our not-so-distant recent past, while artificial intelligence was doing these with the databases it had accumulated and its time-indicating logs, we now see that it does these through non-fungible tokens (NFT) and smart contracts. NFTs, in which blockchain technology is used, reveal the identity of the creator and the creation history of the product with all transparency, making it easier to identify the creator of the intellectual and industrial property right and creating an environment of trust for those who want to take over the intellectual and industrial property right. In addition, smart contracts also play a role in the rapid and transparent realization of the transfer, as they are contracts that are established and automatically executed by the simultaneous meeting of the parties’ wills in the digital environment. We see that smart contracts do not have a broad process narrative as in traditional contracts. In smart contracts, the execution time of the parties is carried out simultaneously with the help of technology. This provides both convenience and an environment of trust for the parties.
Another field where the reflection of artificial intelligence on intellectual and industrial property rights is seen is the metaverse universe. Metaverse has brought a new perspective to intellectual and industrial property rights. Namely; intellectual and industrial property rights in Metaverse are now used more as an investment tool rather than changing hands for art. For this reason, it would be logical to look at the party who buys intellectual and industrial property rights not only as a consumer or buyer, but also as an investor, and to consider the sales strategy from this perspective.
Even though what we can say legally is limited to these, for now, the technology brings excitement to all the sectors, and also the legal world is deeply excited. As developments occur in the upcoming period, we will try to convey them to you and try our best to mature the legal field.
ATT. Sinem İLİKLİ
TARLAN- BAKSI LAW FIRM
ATT. AYLİN TARLAN – ATT. DERYA BAKSI
Tarlan-Baksı Avukatlık Bürosu Bloğu 