Artificial Intelligence: In the Aspect of Protection of Intellectual Property and Consumer Rights

Artificial intelligence is an indication the development of the technology age is at the forefront. Every new innovation has both positive and negative aspects as we go through a period of adaptation as we apply it in our lives. We take its negative aspects as a guide to its social benefit over time, or it is adapted and appropriated in a positive sense. Artificial intelligence refers to the system of scientific research conducted in the field of creating technical systems that work as human logic. These machines, devices that implement rules of human behavior. It was created and developed in order to accurately simulate intelligence by machines, which is the most valuable property of a person. There are many artificial intelligence application as, Netflix recommendation system, self-driving car Tesla and Waymo, the Google Home smart assistant, understanding human speech such as Siri or Alexa, automated decision-making, and competing at the highest level in strategic game systems such as chess and Go, etc. Artificial intelligence is included frontier technologies. Actually, the creation of artificial intelligence has advanced the industry, different side of buisness.

The concept of artificial intelligence was first introduced by John McCarthy. McCarthy; artificial intelligence concept, especially smart computer he defined it as the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, including programs.[1]

  In the legal regulations, the definition of artificial intelligence has not been made. However, with the spread of technology, definition will be needed. The general definition to be made accepted, flexible and not hindering innovation. Mathematics, probability and statistics are the basis of artificial intelligence systems. One cannot calculate Artificial intelligence can calculate as much data quickly. As a result of these calculations, certain estimates can be made or able to perform a specific task.

Aspect of protection of intellectual property rights.

So, every area of our life receives its share from the application of artificial intelligence. Even the current system of intellectual property rights are affected by the artifiacial intelligence. Artificial intelligence tools can motivate, facilitate improving, novating it. But also causes difficulties for the protection of rights in this area. Recognizing the need to protect the value of their investments on artificial intellegence, entrepreneurs and companies are increasingly securing intellectual property protection.

What are Intellectual Property Rights? İntellectual Property Rights are the rights associated with intangible property owned by a person/company and protected against use without consent. Thus, rights relating to ownership of intellectual property are called Intellectual Property Rights. These rights aim to protect intellectual property (creations of human intellect) by allowing the creators of trademarks, patents, or copyrighted works to benefit from their creations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also refers to intellectual property rights under Article 27 which states that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”[2]

Intellectual Property Rights is a significant implement to protect inventions, new technologies and take advantages for owners. Artificial Intelligence is one of these opportunities.

Even today, it is possible to talk about copyright based on the creation of artificial intelligence itself.  Only in the works created by artificial intelligence without human intervention, the criterion of creativity is met and can be considered as a work and subject to legal protection??!!. An examination of the concept of artificial intelligence from various angles suggests that artificial intelligence is a subject, an object, or a compromise between the two.

Artificial intelligence is not considered a subject in US case law. We can give an example of this by referring to “DABUS” work about Invention generated by artificial intelligence. The Federal Circuit made headlines when it affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s holding that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot qualify as an “inventor” under the Patent Act – only (human) “individuals” can. The patent application at the heart of the case listed a single inventor with the given name “DABUS” and the family name “(Invention generated by artificial intelligence).” The district court had granted the motion for summary judgment of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after the applicant and assignee of the patent application, Stephen Thaler, challenged the USPTO’s denial of his petition and requested reconsideration of the Office’s dismissal of his patent application for failure to identify each inventor by his or her legal name. While the Federal Circuit opinion is important, we anticipate the real-life upshot of its holding will be minimal. As the court said, “we are not confronted today with the question of whether inventions made by human beings with the assistance of AI are eligible for patent protection,” and yet that is the question that is most relevant today. [3]

But what if artificial intelligence invents something without human intervention, how correct is it to attribute it to humans? İs that fair?

The copyright on the works created by human intervention belongs directly to the person who made the regulation on the artificial intelligence. In our opinion, this is a contradictory approach. Because it is not right to give any rights in the work that reflects our personality (for example, novel, story) to the people who code the programs used as mediators when creating a work. As an example, we can show the Microsoft Word program. Today, most works are written in the Microsoft Word program. Then it turns out that the copyright on the work we write in the Word program should be given to the person who created the Word program.

According to another approach, the copyright of the relevant works belongs to the person using the software. It is not possible to copyright a work using only one program. For example, you write the work in a computer program not by yourself, but by someone else, but the original ideas belong to you. You cannot copyright a work just by being a user of the software.

According to another view, the copyright on the work belongs to the program. When the copyright is granted, the owner of the work must be able to use this right and protect it. When artificial intelligence is copyrighted, it does not seem possible today to protect it: because the protection of the right requires identity. Currently, artificial intelligence has no identity.

According to the last approach, these works should be considered public property. The products produced by artificial intelligence should be used for the public benefit. Sometimes, in the case of creation of works by artificial intelligence producers and users, this interaction cannot be separated from each other, and the resulting work must be considered unclaimed and considered public property. In 1962, Nils Bohlin, who invented the seat belt at Volvo, gave up the potential profit and his invention. made its patent open for use by all car companies to save lives.[4] Some researchers consider that this approach is unrealistic because most inventors will not be interested in making new inventions because they cannot profit from an Artificial Intelligence system.

The Future of Life Institute adopted a declaration of 23 principles at the 2017 Artificial Intelligence conference in California. This declaration is also called the Asilomar Principles. These principles are one of the earliest and most influential sets of artificial intelligence governance principles. Articles 15 and 23 of this declaration are as follows: 15) Shared Prosperity: The economic prosperity created by Artificial intelligence should be shared broadly, to benefit all of humanity. 23) Common Good: Superintelligence should only be developed in the service of widely shared ethical ideals, and for the benefit of all humanity rather than one state or organization.[5]

In situations where the substance is produced by Artificial intelligence and there is no human creator, the Intellectual Property Rights will be held by the person making the game plans by which the work (AI) is produced. Hence, under the UK law, Artificial Intelligence is not viewed as a creator.

Our proposed mechanism for solving the issue is as follows: Artificial intelligence should be given the status of electronic identity (registration as a legal entity and control of a natural person), and the copyright over the works created by it should formally belong to the artificial intelligence, and in fact to the creator of the artificial intelligence. The income from the copyright should be deposited in the bank account of artificial intelligence. Regarding the issue of legal status, here we should emphasize the legal status of robots with artificial intelligence, not artificial intelligence in general. Thus, it is planned to give electronic identity status to such robots.

Aspect of protection of consumer rights.

With digitization businesses; while opening up to a wider market for its products and services, can obtain the data they need. Also artificial intelligence, as well as providing great benefits to humanity, also includes the risks of serious harm. One of these risks is the is the damages caused by artificial intelligence and the tort liability arising from these damages. In many countries, there is no legal regulation specific to artificial intelligence, and there is no special regulation regarding the damages caused by artificial intelligence and the liability of tortious acts arising from these damages.

The application of artificial intelligence also affects consumer rights. When the consumer obtains artificial intelligence applications, essential information should be given due to the law. By law, in writing the consumer should be informed with the contracts foreseen and this information should be at least twelve point size, understandable in a language, in a clear, simple and legible manner, and a copy of on paper or with permanent data storage must be given to the consumer. In contracts concluded with an intermediary, this information to the remote communication tool used should be given appropriately. In terms of contracts to be made by means of distance communication, information of the nature specified in the regulation on distance contracts must be made to the consumer.

Primarily the basis of the producter’s responsibility, product, in other words, the concept of faulty product should be defined. Secondly, it is necessary to determine whether artificial intelligence is a product or not. Finally, under what conditions consumers can apply to producters?

The product must comply with the normal conditions and requirements of the contract,. medium qualifications rightfully expects from the product must be provided.

Artificial intelligence as a movable property, it is debatable whether it can be evaluated or not. The idea comes into existence as a result of an effort, thought and design. By nature, it can be considered as a computer program. Therefore, it is an intangible property, intangible goods; values that have no physical existence and that can always be perceived without any change, that is, the product of human intelligence, liability is limited only to movable goods and intangible.

Who will be responsible and who will pay for damages caused by artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is not a person. Therefore, from the harm caused by artificial intelligence will not be referred to him. However, due to the damage caused by artificial intelligence, the producter or user can be contacted. The damaged consumers will be able to claim against damaged suffered by producter, seller, etc.


As a result, the issue of protection of intellectual property and consumer rights emerged. Advances in the creation and application of artificial intelligence have made intersections with different areas of law inevitable.

Despite the potential risks, there are currently no direct norms governing the use of artificial intelligence tools. Although countries have laws on this issue, it usually applies indirectly to artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is not designed to replace us. It enhances our abilities and develops our creations, finds and corrects overlooked errors, and surpasses us in time and quality. However, this does not change the fact that it is the product of human brain and labor, and cannot completely replace it. The future will be built on the joint activity of natural and artificial intelligence, and has even begun to be built.

[1] John McCarthy, What is Artificial Intelligence?,http://jmc.stanford. edu/articles/whatisai.html, (Mar. 25, 2023, 08:30 AM) p.2

[2] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Mar. 25, 2023, 06:30 AM),

[3] Thaler v. Vidal, 2021-2347, 2022 WL 3130863 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022) at 10.)

[4]  Nils Bohlin Three-Point Safety Belt Computing and Telecommunications (Mar. 25, 2023, 07:24 AM),

[5] AI principles, (Mar. 25, 2023, 07:45 AM),

Author: Parvana Mammadova 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s