Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia?

Karolina Ziemianin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1544

2021-04-07

Internet Policy Review

Abstract:How to provide society with legal protection against the harm caused by AI? Considerations against the background of tort liability in Polish and European law

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Theoretical aspects of identyifying legal personality of artificial intelligence: cross-national analysis of the laws of foreign countries

Kamilla S. Musina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2023-27-1-135-147

2023-03-26

RUDN JOURNAL OF LAW

Abstract:Research analyzes the issues of determining the legal status of artificial intellect. As artificial intellect (AI) systems become more sophisticated and play an increasingly important role in society, the arguments that they should have some form of legal personality are becoming increasingly relevant. The research argues that most legal systems could create a new category of legal persons. The issues of innovative trends in law enforcement practice are also in the focus as well as the issues of establishing general provisions on liability for criminal acts committed due to technical failures of artificial intelligence without the presence of anthropogenic participation and intervention. The article presents the results of the relevance of philosophical-legal and ontological analysis not only to a state, but also to the prospective future modifications of artificial intelligence. It outlines the results of a comparative analysis of the laws regulating artificial intelligence in a number of foreign countries along with the results of a retrospective analysis of some historical stages in the development of legal regulation of artificial intelligence.
Future of the Artificial Intelligence: Object of Law or Legal Personality?

I. Filipova,V. D. Koroteev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.15

2023-06-16

Abstract:Objective: to reveal the problems associated with legal regulation of public relations, in which artificial intelligence systems are used, and to rationally comprehend the possibility of endowing such systems with a legal subject status, which is being discussed by legal scientists.Methods: the methodological basis of the research are the general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, analogy, abstraction and classification. Among the legal methods primarily applied in the work are formal-legal, comparative-legal and systemic-structural methods, as well as the methods of law interpretation and legal modeling.Results: the authors present a review of the state of artificial intelligence development and its introduction into practice by the time of the research. Legal framework in this sphere is considered; the key current concepts of endowing artificial intelligence with a legal personality (individual, collective and gradient legal personality of artificial intelligence) are reviewed. Each approach is assessed; conclusions are made as to the most preferable amendments in the current legislation, which ceases to correspond to the reality. The growing inconsistency is due to the accelerated development of artificial intelligence and its spreading in various sectors of economy, social sphere, and in the nearest future – in public management. All this testifies to the increased risk of a break between legal matter and the changing social reality.Scientific novelty: scientific approaches are classified which endow artificial intelligence with a legal personality. Within each approach, the key moments are identified, the use of which will allow in the future creating legal constructs based on combinations, avoiding extremes and observing the balance between the interests of all parties. The optimal variant to define the legal status of artificial intelligence might be to include intellectual systems into a list of civil rights objects, but differentiating the legal regulation of artificial intelligence as an object of law and an “electronic agent” as a quasi subject of law. The demarcation line should be drawn depending on the functional differences between intellectual systems, while not only a robot but also a virtual intellectual system can be considered an “electronic agent”.Practical significance: the research materials can be used when preparing proposals for making amendments and additions to the current legislation, as well as when elaborating academic course and writing tutorials on the topics related to regulation of using artificial intelligence.

Law,Computer Science
AI Systems and Liability: An Assessment of the Applicability of Strict Liability & A Case for Limited Legal Personhood for AI

Louisa McDonald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15664/stalj.v3i1.2645

2023-08-22

St Andrews Law Journal

Abstract:Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have prompted discussion about whether conventional liability laws can be applicable to AI systems which manifest a high degree of autonomy. Users and developers of such AI systems may meet neither the epistemic (sufficient degree of awareness of what is happening) nor control (control over the actions performed) conditions of personal responsibility for the actions of the system at hand, and therefore, conventional liability schemes may seem to be inapplicable[1]. The recently adopted AI Liability Directive [2022] has sought to adapt EU law to the challenges to conventional liability schemes posed by AI systems by imposing a system of strict, rather than fault-based liability, for AI systems. The goal of this is to be able to more easily hold developers, producers, and users of AI technologies accountable, requiring them to explain how AI systems were built and trained. The Directive aims to make it easier for people and companies harmed by AI systems to sue those responsible for the AI systems for damages. However, the Directive seems to ignore the potential injustice that could result from producers and developers being held accountable for actions caused by AI systems which they are neither aware of nor have sufficient control over. In this essay, I will critically assess the Directive’s system of fault-based liability for AI systems and argue that, whilst such a system may confer some instrumental advantages on behalf of those suing for damages caused by AI systems, it risks causing injustice on the part of developers and producers by making them liable for events they could neither control nor predict. This is likely to risk both producing unjust outcomes and hindering progress in AI development. Instead, following Visa Kurki’s analysis of legal personhood as a cluster concept divided into passive and active incidents, I will argue that some AI systems ought to be granted a limited form of legal personhood, because they meet some of the relevant criteria for active legal personhood, such as the capacity to perform acts-in-the-law. The legal personhood I propose for AI systems is a kind of dependent legal personhood analogous to that granted to corporations. Such a form of legal personhood would not absolve developers and producers from liability for damages (where such liability is applicable), but at the same time, it would not risk unjustly holding producers and developers liable for actions of an AI system. [1] Mark Coeckelbergh, "Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability." Science and Engineering Ethics, (2020): 2054
The issue of determining the subjects of legal liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence: analysis of solutions

Yulia Balalaeva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35750/2071-8284-2023-3-10-19

2023-09-28

Abstract:Abstract: Introduction. The current processes of digitalization, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence have an impact on many spheres of public life. Law is no exception. The danger emanating from artificial intelligence, associated with technical failures, errors, machine learning defects, causes a high probability of harm to legally protected public relations. In this regard, the issues of legal liability are becoming acute. The purpose of the research is to study the issue of determining the subjects of legal liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence, to analyze ways to solve it. Research methods. The author used the dialectical method of cognition, a set of general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), as well as a number of special methods of cognition (formal legal, comparative legal, systemic, functional). Results. As a result of the research, the author comes to the conclusion that today artificial intelligence cannot act as an independent subject of legal liability due to the fact that it is a technology, the implementation and its use needs legal regulation. Artificial intelligence is considered as an object of legal regulation. Only individuals and legal entities that ensure its functioning can be brought to legal liability for the damage caused by artificial intelligence. The idea of endowing artificial intelligence with legal personality, which is popular in science today, leads away from real issues that need to be solved to ensure its development and large-scale use. The author suggests focusing on those forms of artificial intelligence that surround us at the moment, and considering theoretical and practical issues as applied to them. Not only robotic devices can act as such forms, but also various programs (software) that do not have a cyber-physical shell.
Artificial intelligence from the perspective of polish intellectual property law. Selected issues

Adrian Nievienhlovskyi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/52022.270901

2022-12-29

Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property

Abstract:Keywords: artificial intelligence, intellectual property law, copyright, industrialproperty law, computer programs In Poland, as in other countries, there is an ongoing discussion on legal issues related to artificial intelligence. Formany people, there is no doubt that this intelligence should be protected. The problem rather narrows down to what conditions must be met for this protection. Some Polish scientists want to wait for solutions to be developed in the European Union.Poland, as a member state of the European Union, must respect the regulations emerging at the EU level. These regulations are only being planned. There is a certain risk in introducing new regulations in Poland without waiting for EU solutions.It could turn out that the laws adopted by Poland would be incompatible, not in compliance with European law.On the other hand, the software producers' communities are pushing for the introductionof relevant legislation now. They claim that this is needed to protect the funds that are being invested in artificial intelligence in Poland. In their view, without proper legislation, investors will reduce financial support for the developmentof artificial intelligence. In fact, however, the computer manufacturers' communityis not at all concerned with protecting 'mere' artificial intelligence. It is protected in Poland and can be provided by copyright law in particular. The most important issue in Poland already relates to the protection of creations generatedby artificial intelligence. This is in fact what the computer software development community and beyond cares most about.However, the protection of creations of artificial intelligence is not only about benefits, but also about threats. This will be discussed further in the article. Some lawyers are considering how to interpret the existing legislation so that the protectionof artificial intelligence creations is already possible. They want to use existing theoretical constructs to justify this protection.

English Else
Redefining the concept of ‘person’ in criminal law: Whether to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence systems

Hye-Jeong Kim,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15539/khlj.57.4.3

2022-12-30

Kyung Hee Law Journal

Abstract:The development of science and technology in the 4th industrial revolution requires a change in our traditional thinking. The autonomy of artificial intelligence systems based on big data and machine learning is increasing day by day. These changes are urging a change in the basic paradigm of criminal law based on the correlation between 'free will and responsibility'. Accordingly, criminal law is facing the question of whether a new legal personhood should be recognized for artificial intelligence systems or artificial intelligence robots. Although the concept of artificial intelligence system does not seem to be unified yet, the European Union states that artificial intelligence system “means software implemented by a specific technique, and content and prediction through interaction with the surrounding environment within the scope of a purpose defined by humans, reasoning, and decision-making.” The representative characteristic of these AI systems is autonomy. Autonomy can be defined as “the ability to make decisions and execute them externally, independent of external influences or controls.”(Regarding who will take responsibility for the problems caused by artificial intelligence systems or artificial intelligence robots capable of autonomous judgment, the negative opinion that the ability to take responsibility cannot be acknowledged to artificial intelligence robots, and strong artificial intelligence systems rather than weak artificial intelligence systems As an autonomous subject of action, it is opposed to a positive view that it can acknowledge its responsibility.) It is necessary to think about whether artificial intelligence robots can be said to be human beings just as natural people are human beings, that is, whether we need to re-evaluate our ability to take responsibility for all beings. In the future, if artificial intelligence robots become more common than they are today, interactions with humans become more active, and the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence systems further improve, there is a political need to regulate them legally. The current legal system recognizes the subjectivity of rights by granting unlimited rights capacity only to natural persons, and recognizes the subjectivity of rights within a limited scope to corporations. However, since this is recognized by the provisions of the law rather than absolute, it is a legal policy issue that can vary depending on the era and society in terms of legal policy and to what extent the legal capacity or legal personality is to be granted. Although currently weak AI systems do not have full autonomy, considering the 'unpredictability' inherent in AI systems, it is necessary to concretize the discussion on granting legal personality to strong AI systems to come in the future. have.

English Else
Artificial intelligence as a part of public life: ethical and legal problems and their solutions

Victoria R. Babenkova,Natalia V. Kravchenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-9340-2024-8-1-7-16

2024-01-01

Current Issues of the State and Law

Abstract:The ethical and legal problems of artificial intelligence’s comprehensive integration into the public environment, its impact on the human life sphere are investigated. The intensity of the ongoing changes requires not only full-fledged legal regulation, but also a comprehensive study of both the positive aspects of innovations, as well as the foresight of possible threats and the formation of adequate protective mechanisms from the law point of view, from the standpoint of human moral values. It is a systematic approach and the possible negative consequences’ prevention of the artificial intelligence use that should shape the goal-setting of the development and implementation of such systems. Using scientific cognition methods, such as analysis, synthesis, system-analytical, formal-logical, system-legal, various approaches to understanding the definition of “artificial intelligence” have been studied, taking into account all the features of such systems, the necessary ways to solve the identified gaps in legal regulation related to determining the place of objects and artificial intelligence systems in the legal space. The social and practical significance of the development of robotics is touched upon, while attention is focused on the regulation of possible risks. It is concluded that it is the compliance of the functions performed by artificial intelligence with the ethical and moral canons of society that should be decisive in solving issues of responsibility. Separately, proposals are presented to determine civil liability both in cases of direct harm by robots with artificial intelligence, and in cases of damage or destruction of an artificial intelligence system by a third party to their owner.
Artificial intelligence versus human - a threat or a necessity of evolution?

Izabela Oleksiewicz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.3.22.4

2022-12-29

Przegląd europejski

Abstract:Currently, technologies are actively shaping and intensifying the time of implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, while at the same time the so-called soft skills that employers are looking for in future employees are becoming increasingly important. Thus, in today's situation, we have the possibility to use automatons and robots that successfully replace humans in many tasks, while at the same time there is a need to create teams based on such qualities as empathy, communication, ingenuity, intelligence and, above all, humanism, whose importance in creating a business perspective cannot be overestimated. The aim of this article is to analyse the research problem in case of social robots and the probable legal status of artificial intelligence in the future. The article will discuss the differences between artificial intelligence versus artificial consciousness. AI poses societal challenges, it is currently undergoing a number of important developments, and the law must be rapidly changed. Firstly, the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness is attempted to be demystified. Subsequently, the analysis of current legal status of Artificial Intelligence in EU will be conducted. Cyberspace and the Internet revolutionised human life. It brings benefits, but also hitherto unknown risks. However, this is an inherent problem of human development. Every new technology, every new invention has its advantages, but also disadvantages. It would seem that autonomous systems, using artificial intelligence, are a panacea for such problems. Perhaps so, but the security of cyberspace depends on a variety of factors that are sometimes beyond our control or, from another perspective, we ourselves create the threat, inspire it intentionally or through inadequacies, ignorance, and negligence.
The construction of artificial intelligence private legal personality system

Chunmei Wang,Jingjing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/2587-9723.2022.5.086-092

2023-10-30

Legal Science in China and Russia

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications have already penetrated into people’s daily life, making the legal status of artificial intelligence an unavoidable topic nowadays. The legal personhood of AI, treated differently by scholars, is a controversial question. There are three different opinions about this, which are “Full Qualification”, “Limited Qualification” and “No Qualification”. Among them, the affirmative route equates personhood is the most thorough way to recognize the legal status of artificial intelligence. This route recognizes strong artificial intelligence as the legal personhood and is the most thorough way to recognize the legal status of artificial intelligence; The middle line upholds "Limited Qualification" and differential logic to classify it into the subject category, that is, to recognize that artificial intelligence has legal personality in essence; The negative route adheres to negative logic, and attempts to fundamentally address the legal status of artificial agents.This negative route regards artificial intelligence as an object position in the legal rights structure, and is the most conservative research approach. At the normative level, most countries outside the region hold a supportive and open attitude towards artificial intelligence. The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament took the first key step and pioneered the concept of "electronic person", drawing a picture of the legal status of strong artificial intelligence in the future. Russia and South Korea followed closely.Russia adopted a binary characterization of artificial intelligence in the "Grischen Act", and South Korea borrowed the concept of "electronic person" from the EU in the "Basic Robot Act", and determined robot ethics and the basic principle of responsibility, at the same time, the Act clarifies the behavioral boundaries of designers, manufacturers and users of robots. On the one hand, by comparing the different theoretical routes and related legislation of the legal status of artificial intelligence, we need to face up to the impact of the times and technological development on the traditional physical system, recognize the differential order of objects, and affirmed that artificial intelligence has the status of legal subject. On the other hand, with the support of algorithmic rules, artificial intelligence can create rules and actions, and enter the core of rights elements, especially its deep learning ability, which can make it eventually surpass the "object status", and then complete the evolution from "tool" to "intelligent agents". In this sense, it is reasonable to take the form of “technical person” to identify subject qualification of AI: as for the acquisition and termination of subject qualification, it is essential to set conditions for registration and procedural requirements; as for property legal liability, weakening the relevancy between property and personality to give AI a kind of subject qualification similar to non-incorporated organizations’; in addition, in terms of non-independent subject qualification, the owner or the administrator should bear joint and several liability or bear supplementary joint and several liability for the AI’s conduct to safeguard commercial transactions.
The Conflict Between People's Urge to Punish AI and Legal Systems

Gabriel Lima,Meeyoung Cha,Chihyung Jeon,Kyungsin Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.756242

2021-11-11

Abstract:Regulating artificial intelligence (AI) has become necessary in light of its deployment in high-risk scenarios. This paper explores the proposal to extend legal personhood to AI and robots, which had not yet been examined through the lens of the general public. We present two studies (N = 3,559) to obtain people's views of electronic legal personhood vis-à-vis existing liability models. Our study reveals people's desire to punish automated agents even though these entities are not recognized any mental state. Furthermore, people did not believe automated agents' punishment would fulfill deterrence nor retribution and were unwilling to grant them legal punishment preconditions, namely physical independence and assets. Collectively, these findings suggest a conflict between the desire to punish automated agents and its perceived impracticability. We conclude by discussing how future design and legal decisions may influence how the public reacts to automated agents' wrongdoings.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Symbiosis with artificial intelligence via the prism of law, robots, and society

Stamatis Karnouskos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09289-1

IF: 4.1

2021-05-13

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Abstract:Abstract The rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics will have a profound impact on society as they will interfere with the people and their interactions. Intelligent autonomous robots, independent if they are humanoid/anthropomorphic or not, will have a physical presence, make autonomous decisions, and interact with all stakeholders in the society, in yet unforeseen manners. The symbiosis with such sophisticated robots may lead to a fundamental civilizational shift, with far-reaching effects as philosophical, legal, and societal questions on consciousness, citizenship, rights, and legal entity of robots are raised. The aim of this work is to understand the broad scope of potential issues pertaining to law and society through the investigation of the interplay of law, robots, and society via different angles such as law, social, economic, gender, and ethical perspectives. The results make it evident that in an era of symbiosis with intelligent autonomous robots, the law systems, as well as society, are not prepared for their prevalence. Therefore, it is now the time to start a multi-disciplinary stakeholder discussion and derive the necessary policies, frameworks, and roadmaps for the most eminent issues.

computer science, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary applications,law
AI and international law – Legal personality and avenues for regulation

András Hárs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2022.00352

2022-09-13

Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies

Abstract:Abstract The development of AI has been an explosive process, permeating almost all areas of life. During this rapid evolution, the legal profession has been slow to catch up. This is especially true for international law, which seemingly remains indecisive regarding whether it has a role to play at all. This article aims at mapping out converging points between AI and international law. Through separating key elements of the definition and nature of AI, the possibility of its legal personality and the means by which AI may become a subject of international law are analysed. Utilizing various modalities regarding legal personality, such as that of inanimate objects, corporations and natural persons, the paper presents avenues for if and when decision-makers want to regulate the field. Last, the advantages and problems with bestowing legal personality and the potential future directions of international regulation are observed.
Artificial intelligence as a potential subject of property and intellectual property relations

Kateryna Nekit,Vira Tokareva,Volodymyr Zubar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v9i1.227

2020-05-23

Abstract:The article analyzes the possibility to provide legal capacity to artificial intelligence, which would lead to the emergence of a new subject in legal relations. The aim of the article is to reveal whether it is possible to recognize, that artificial intelligence is able to have property and intellectual property rights. To achieve this aim, dialectical, comparative, dogmatic and legal methods are used. It is noted that according to recent studies, there are more and more grounds for recognizing artificial intelligence as subjects of legal relations. Particular attention in the article is paid to the specifics of the status of artificial intelligence in property relations. The consequences of empowering artificial intelligence with the right to property are analyzed. The conclusion is drawn on the appropriateness of such an approach, since this will solve the problem of liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence. The possibility of endowing artificial intelligence with property on the basis of trust before resolving the issue of its legal personality is proposed. Modern approaches to the problem of rights to objects of creativity created by artificial intelligence are considered in the article. The options for the distribution of rights to such objects are analyzed depending on the degree of human participation in their creation and on the level of complexity of the artificial intelligence that creates these objects. The general conclusion is made about the possibility to qualify artificial intelligence as a subject of legal relations, in particular, of property and intellectual property relations.
Artificial intelligence as a participant in civil relations: the transformation of law

Evgeniy V. Vavilin,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/42/11

2021-01-01

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as AI) carriers are active participants in civil relations. Therefore, questions of legal nature of AI units, their ability to possess rights and bear responsibilities, exercise rights and perform responsibilities, questions of liability limits for improper exercise of rights and performance of responsibilities by AI units are most relevant. For law, the defining characteristic of any participant in civil relations is its role in the exercise of rights and the performance of duties. The digital actor must also be viewed from this perspective. One of the central debates in this area is the possibility of conferring legal capacity on digital actors. This position has found supporters and opponents both in domestic science and abroad. At the same time it is necessary to take into account the specifics of will, consciousness and other anthropomorphic qualities of AI carriers. Complex neural networks have similar anthropomorphic qualities, the nature of which is a digital algorithm. AI is capable of expressing its will in accordance with the interest, goals and motives set by software algorithms, i.e. it is technological in nature. Obviously, an AI must be endowed with legal capacity and be responsible for its actions, otherwise we cannot use the full potential of an AI as a technology (person), and the actions of such a participant in legal relations cannot be recognised as legally significant. According to its purpose and registration an AI medium can be endowed with different legal personality: to be an agent - a subject with a narrow special legal capacity within certain functions, to participate in civil relations as a full subject, or to act as an object of legal relations at all. This legal capacity is conditioned by the robot having a certain set of qualities, such as the level of self-awareness, autonomy, complexity of neural networks, and competences. It is necessary to create a classification of AI forms by legal personality, by competences, which are certified through state registration. Legal statuses of different types of AI should be defined, including a new specific legal status of limited digital legal capacity. It is necessary to consider the legal personality of AI in relation to its exercise of rights, principles of law and legal content. It is necessary to create for AI varieties a certain mechanism of responsibility conditioned by the legal status assigned to it at the state registration. With respect to AI carriers the nature of law execution changes - subjective expression of will disappears, the execution becomes objective, unbiased. AI software must incorporate a system of principles for the exercise of rights and the performance of duties. In this way, the AI will be certified to a specific scope of powers, be competence-oriented and have a specific legal capacity.
The Risk-Based Approach of the European Union’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Some Comments from a Tort Law Perspective

J. Chamberlain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.38

2022-12-05

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Abstract:Abstract How can tort law contribute to a better understanding of the risk-based approach in the European Union’s (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act proposal and evolving liability regime? In a new legal area of intense development, it is pivotal to make the best use possible of existing regulation and legal knowledge. The main objective of this article is thus to investigate the relationship between traditional tort law principles, with a focus on risk assessments, and the developing legislation on artificial intelligence (AI) in the EU. The article offers a critical analysis and evaluation from a tort law perspective of the risk-based approach in the proposed AI Act and the European Parliament resolution on a civil liability regime for AI, with comparisons also to the proposal for a revised and AI-adapted product liability directive and the recently proposed directive on civil liability for AI. The discussion leads to the illumination of both challenges and possibilities in the interplay between AI, tort law and the concept of risk, displaying the large potential of tort law as a tool for handling rising AI issues.

Law
Criminal Law And Artificial Intelligence: Perspective From Italian And European Experience

Federico Consulich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2023-3-270

2023-01-01

European Criminal Law Review

Abstract:An offence committed by artificial intelligence seems like an oxymoron, at least in a legal system in which criminal offence is literally an expression of the personality of a human being. However, reality knocks on the door of the criminalist, evoking the possibility that a non-human agent may commit harmful acts for which the community expresses a need for punishment. This paper examines the perspective of a rational criminal control with respect to acts performed by or by means of machines and software that learn and evolve through a comparison with the environment in which they operate.
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Complexities of Cyber Law

Anna Ubaydullayeva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.57

2023-07-09

International Journal of Law and Policy

Abstract:Abstract This article provides an extensive analysis of the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP) within the framework of Cyber Law. It examines the current state of AI and IP, emphasizing the legal and regulatory implications of their intersection. A comprehensive literature review and legal analysis, coupled with a comparative study of AI and IP regulatory frameworks, informs the discussion. We explore the privacy and data protection issues in AI, the evolving nature of Intellectual Property rights in the AI era, and the liability concerns related to AI applications. A comparative analysis of AI and IP regulation across various jurisdictions provides insights into the effectiveness of international frameworks and the challenges posed by cross-border regulation. The article further discusses the need for flexible and adaptive regulatory approaches that balance risk management with innovation promotion. We then highlight emerging legal and regulatory issues in AI and IP and offer recommendations for policymakers, regulators, and AI developers. Finally, the article encapsulates the key findings and their implications for AI and IP regulation, outlining future challenges and opportunities in this domain.

English Else
Artificial Intelligence as a Legal Entity: A Balanced Examination of Pros and Cons

Azamat Xudaybergenov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.86

2023-06-30

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly pervasive in society, prompting debates about its legal status. This paper explores the positive and negative aspects of recognizing AI as a legal entity. It presents the potential advantages, including improved accountability and effective regulation, and highlights the disadvantages, such as ethical dilemmas and legal complexities. Utilizing legal and philosophical methodologies, the study identifies a central problem: the need for a balanced perspective that recognizes the potential benefits and inherent risks of acknowledging AI as a legal entity. Proposed solutions include the development of a separate legal status for AI, a phased approach for integrating AI into existing legal systems, and maintaining some form of human oversight and accountability. The paper underscores the need for interdisciplinary dialogue and suggests avenues for future research, including empirical studies and ethical analyses. As AI continues to advance, understanding its legal implications is of vital importance.
The Problem of Legal Protection of Intellectual Property Objects Created Using Digital Technologies

M. A. Egorova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.101.1.127-138

2023-03-24

Abstract:The article deals with the key problems of protection of intellectual property and the results of intellectual activity in the context of the rapid development of digital technologies. The key factor influencing the development of intellectual property rights in modern conditions is the transparency of relations in the digital environment, the absence of actual borders within the global digital space, the mixing of various branches of knowledge, science and technology. The author believes that rethinking the role of robots in public life poses the task of a humane approach to the legal regulation of the use of AI. Objectively, there is a need to resolve the issue of introducing responsibility for the action of AI, its legal justification and consolidation. The author also believes that the legal personality of AI will be built by analogy with the legal personality of legal entities, currently it is sufficient to amend the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This, at the current stage of the application of artificial intelligence, will allow us to determine the basic principles and legal regulation of this sphere.

Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia?

Theoretical aspects of identyifying legal personality of artificial intelligence: cross-national analysis of the laws of foreign countries

Future of the Artificial Intelligence: Object of Law or Legal Personality?

AI Systems and Liability: An Assessment of the Applicability of Strict Liability & A Case for Limited Legal Personhood for AI

The issue of determining the subjects of legal liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence: analysis of solutions

Artificial intelligence from the perspective of polish intellectual property law. Selected issues

Redefining the concept of ‘person’ in criminal law: Whether to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence systems

Artificial intelligence as a part of public life: ethical and legal problems and their solutions

Artificial intelligence versus human - a threat or a necessity of evolution?

The construction of artificial intelligence private legal personality system

The Conflict Between People's Urge to Punish AI and Legal Systems

Symbiosis with artificial intelligence via the prism of law, robots, and society

AI and international law – Legal personality and avenues for regulation

Artificial intelligence as a potential subject of property and intellectual property relations

Artificial intelligence as a participant in civil relations: the transformation of law

The Risk-Based Approach of the European Union’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Some Comments from a Tort Law Perspective

Criminal Law And Artificial Intelligence: Perspective From Italian And European Experience

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Complexities of Cyber Law

Artificial Intelligence as a Legal Entity: A Balanced Examination of Pros and Cons

The Problem of Legal Protection of Intellectual Property Objects Created Using Digital Technologies