digitallawJournal of Digital Technologies and LawJournal of Digital Technologies and Law2949-2483Kazan Innovative University named after V. G. Timiryasov10.21202/jdtl.2024.8shflwbdigitallaw-377Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИAuthors’ Moral Rights in the Digital EnvironmentМоральные права автора в цифровой средеhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9152-5950СапиЭ.SápiE.

Эдит Сапи – PhD, доцент, кафедра гражданского права

H-3515 Университетский городок, г. Мишкольц

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57308570200

WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AEQ-0477-2022

Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=KTxQEiMAAAAJ

Edit Sápi – PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law

3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Miskolc

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57308570200

WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AEQ-0477-2022

Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=KTxQEiMAAAAJ

edit.sapi@uni-miskolc.huУниверситет МишкольцаВенгрияUniversity of MiskolcHungary20242103202421141–162Copyright © Sápi E., 20242024Сапи Э.Sápi E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/article/view/377Objective

Objective: to answer the question whether the authors’ moral rights the in the digital environment correspond to their original purpose, and to determine the impact of the development of social networking platforms, artificial intelligence technologies and non-fungible tokens (NFT) on the transformed role and features of the protection of the author’s moral rights under modern conditions.

Methods

Methods: the research is based on historical-legal, comparative-legal and formal-dogmatic methods. Legal institutions and legal practice on the issue of protection of the author’s moral rights are subjected to critical analysis.

Results

Results: the genesis and normative fixation of the author’s moral rights are investigated in historical retrospect. It is noted that at present the protection of these rights is insufficiently regulated at the international level, while national copyright law, for example, of continental European states, provides a sufficiently strong protection of the author’s moral rights; however, the effectiveness of the latter is weakening in the digital age. The paper analyzes the changing landscape of copyright relations caused by technological progress: in social networks, in the generation of works by artificial intelligence, and in the creation of digital works of art. The thesis is substantiated that the author’s moral rights are undesirable in the context of social platforms. The paper proposes solutions to the issues of authorship of works created by artificial intelligence, violation of author’s rights, and integrity in case of full or partial borrowing of a work to generate a new work by artificial intelligence. The role of NFT technologies in solving the problem of preserving the author’s moral rights is defined.

Scientific novelty

Scientific novelty: the work fills a gap in research on the relationship between copyright and technological development. It identifies and evaluates the innovations in the purpose and content of the author’s moral rights, caused by the processes of digitalization, and attempts to solve the problem of the author’s rights compliance with technological progress.

Practical significance

Practical significance: the obtained results may serve as a conceptual basis for further development and improvement of national legislation and international legal regulation in the field of copyright protection, transformation of the objectives, role and place of the author’s moral rights in the digital environment.

Цель

Цель: ответить на вопрос, соответствуют ли моральные права автора в цифровой среде своему первоначальному предназначению, и определить влияние развития платформ социальных сетей, технологий искусственного интеллекта и невзаимозаменяемых токенов (NFT) на трансформацию в современных условиях роли и особенностей защиты моральных прав автора.

Методы

Методы: в основу исследования положены историко-правовой, сравнительно-правовой и формально-догматический методы. Правовые институты и юридическая практика по вопросу защиты моральных прав автора подвергаются критическому анализу.

Результаты

Результаты: в исторической ретроспективе исследуется генезис и нормативное закрепление моральных прав автора. Отмечается, что в настоящее время защита этих прав получила недостаточную правовую регламентацию на международном уровне, тогда как национальное авторское право, например, континентальных европейских государств, предоставляет моральным правам авторов достаточно сильную защиту, эффективность которой, однако, ослабевает в цифровую эпоху. Анализируется изменение ландшафта авторско-правовых отношений, обусловленное технологическим прогрессом: в рамках социальных сетей, при генерации произведений искусственным интеллектом, а также при создании цифровых произведений искусства. Обосновывается тезис о нежелательности моральных прав автора в контексте социальных платформ. Решаются вопросы авторства произведений, созданных искусственным интеллектом, нарушения прав на авторство и целостность в случае полного или частичного заимствования произведения для генерации искусственным интеллектом нового произведения. Определяется роль технологий NFT в решении проблемы сохранения моральных прав автора.

Научная новизна

Научная новизна: настоящая работа восполняет пробел в исследованиях взаимосвязи авторского права и технологического развития. В ней выявляются и оцениваются новации предназначения и содержания моральных прав автора, обусловленные процессами цифровизации, а также предпринимаются попытки решения проблемы соответствия авторского права технологическому прогрессу. 

Практическая значимость

Практическая значимость: полученные результаты исследования могут служить концептуальной основой дальнейшего развития и совершенствования национального законодательства и международного правового регулирования в области защиты авторских прав, трансформации целей, роли и места моральных прав автора в цифровой среде.

авторское правоискусственный интеллектморальные права автораневзаимозаменяемые токены (NFT)охрана (защита) авторских правправоправо интеллектуальной собственностисоциальные сетицифровая средацифровые технологииartificial intelligenceauthor’s moral rightscopyrightdigital environmentdigital technologiesintellectual property rightlawnon-fungible tokens (NFT)protection of copyrightsocial networksReferencesAdeney, E. (2006). The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers. An International and Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Adeney, E. (2006). The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers. An International and Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Adler, A. (2009). Against Moral Rights, California Law Review, 97(1), 263.Adler, A. (2009). Against Moral Rights, California Law Review, 97(1), 263.Brożeka, B., & Janik, B. (2019). Can artificial intelligences be moral agents? New Ideas in Psychology, 54(8), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.12.002Brożeka, B., & Janik, B. (2019). Can artificial intelligences be moral agents? New Ideas in Psychology, 54(8), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.12.002Carrillo, M. R. (2020). Artificial intelligence: From ethics to law. Telecommunications Policy, 44(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101937Carrillo, M. R. (2020). Artificial intelligence: From ethics to law. Telecommunications Policy, 44(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101937Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence And The Limits Of Legal Personality. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 819–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000366Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence And The Limits Of Legal Personality. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 819–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000366de Werra, J. (2009). The moral right of integrity. E. Derclaye (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (p. 672). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848446007.00016de Werra, J. (2009). The moral right of integrity. E. Derclaye (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (p. 672). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848446007.00016Dinwoodie, G. B. (2002). The Architecture of the International Intellectual Property System. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77(3).Dinwoodie, G. B. (2002). The Architecture of the International Intellectual Property System. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77(3).Dworkin, G. (1995). The Moral Right of the Author: Moral Rights and the Common Law Countries. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 19(3–4).Dworkin, G. (1995). The Moral Right of the Author: Moral Rights and the Common Law Countries. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 19(3–4).Erdős, B. (2015). A zenei üzleti modellek szerzői jogi háttere. Médiakutató, 16(3).Erdős, B. (2015). A zenei üzleti modellek szerzői jogi háttere. Médiakutató, 16(3).Ficsor, M. (2003). Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO, and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.36255Ficsor, M. (2003). Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO, and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.36255García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). The perception of Artificial Intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or Panic? Education in the Knowledge Society, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). The perception of Artificial Intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or Panic? Education in the Knowledge Society, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279Ginsburg, J. C. (1990). A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America. Tulane Law Review, 64(5), 991–995.Ginsburg, J. C. (1990). A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America. Tulane Law Review, 64(5), 991–995.Ginsburg, J. C. (2002). Essay – How Copyright Got a Bad Name for Itself? The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.342182Ginsburg, J. C. (2002). Essay – How Copyright Got a Bad Name for Itself? The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.342182Ginsburg, J. C. (2018). People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 49(1), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0670-xGinsburg, J. C. (2018). People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 49(1), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0670-xGinsburg, J. C. (2001). Have Moral Rights Come of (Digital) Age in the United States? Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 19(9).Ginsburg, J. C. (2001). Have Moral Rights Come of (Digital) Age in the United States? Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 19(9).Goldschmidt, J. (2002). In Defense of Ghostwriting. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(3), 1145–1212.Goldschmidt, J. (2002). In Defense of Ghostwriting. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(3), 1145–1212.Grad-Gyenge, A. (2023). A mesterséges intelligencia által generált tartalmak értelmezésének lehetőségei a szerzői jog útján. MTA Law Working Papers, 2023(2).Grad-Gyenge, A. (2023). A mesterséges intelligencia által generált tartalmak értelmezésének lehetőségei a szerzői jog útján. MTA Law Working Papers, 2023(2).Grazian, D. (2005). A Digital Revolution? A Reassessment of New Media and Cultural Production in the Digital Age. Annals of AAPSS, 597(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204270286Grazian, D. (2005). A Digital Revolution? A Reassessment of New Media and Cultural Production in the Digital Age. Annals of AAPSS, 597(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204270286Grosheide, W. (2009). Moral rights.In E. Derclay (Ed.). Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848446007.00015Grosheide, W. (2009). Moral rights.In E. Derclay (Ed.). Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848446007.00015Gyertyánfy, P. (2014). Nagykommentár a szerzői jogi törvényhez. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest.Gyertyánfy, P. (2014). Nagykommentár a szerzői jogi törvényhez. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest.Halász, Cs. (2020). Személyiségi jogok a közösségi médiában – új kihívások a bírói gyakorlat tükrében. Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis, Sectio Juridica et Politica, 38(1), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.32978/sjp.2020.020Halász, Cs. (2020). Személyiségi jogok a közösségi médiában – új kihívások a bírói gyakorlat tükrében. Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis, Sectio Juridica et Politica, 38(1), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.32978/sjp.2020.020Hristov, K. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma. IDEA –The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Centre for Intellectual Property, 57, 431–454.Hristov, K. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma. IDEA –The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Centre for Intellectual Property, 57, 431–454.Koltay, A. (2018). A véleménynyilvánításszabadsága. In A. Jakab, & B. Fekete (Eds.), Internetes Jogtudományi Enciklopédia (Alkotmányjogrovat). uKoltay, A. (2018). A véleménynyilvánításszabadsága. In A. Jakab, & B. Fekete (Eds.), Internetes Jogtudományi Enciklopédia (Alkotmányjogrovat). uKwall, R. R. (1997). How Fine Art Fares Post VARA. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 1(1).Kwall, R. R. (1997). How Fine Art Fares Post VARA. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 1(1).Mezei, P. (2020). From Leonardo to the Next Rembrandt – The Need for AI-Pessimism in the Age of Algorithms. UFITA, 84(2). https://doi.org/10.5771/2568-9185-2020-2-390Mezei, P. (2020). From Leonardo to the Next Rembrandt – The Need for AI-Pessimism in the Age of Algorithms. UFITA, 84(2). https://doi.org/10.5771/2568-9185-2020-2-390Miernicki, M., & Ng, I. (2021). Artificial intelligence and moral rights. AI & Society, 36(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01027-6Miernicki, M., & Ng, I. (2021). Artificial intelligence and moral rights. AI & Society, 36(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01027-6Murray, M. D. (2023). Transfers and Licensing of Copyrights to NFT Purchasers. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4152475Murray, M. D. (2023). Transfers and Licensing of Copyrights to NFT Purchasers. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4152475Netz, D. (2018). A mesterséges intelligencia hatása a szerzői jogra. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 13(6).Netz, D. (2018). A mesterséges intelligencia hatása a szerzői jogra. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 13(6).Pessach, G. (2003). The Author’s Moral Right of Integrity in Cyberspace – A Preliminary Normative Framework. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 35(3).Pessach, G. (2003). The Author’s Moral Right of Integrity in Cyberspace – A Preliminary Normative Framework. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 35(3).Pogácsás, A. (2022). Formalitásmentes oltalom elve a szerzői jogban – puszta hagyománytisztelet vagy a modern szerzői jog kiindulópontja? In Á. Juhász(Ed.), Elmélet és praktikum − hagyománytisztelet és modernitás (pp. 78–92). Miskolci Egyetem Államés Jogtudományi Kar Miskolc.Pogácsás, A. (2022). Formalitásmentes oltalom elve a szerzői jogban – puszta hagyománytisztelet vagy a modern szerzői jog kiindulópontja? In Á. Juhász(Ed.), Elmélet és praktikum − hagyománytisztelet és modernitás (pp. 78–92). Miskolci Egyetem Államés Jogtudományi Kar Miskolc.Pogácsás, A. (2014). A szerző jelentősége és művével való kapcsolata. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 10(1), 149–162.Pogácsás, A. (2014). A szerző jelentősége és művével való kapcsolata. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 10(1), 149–162.Pogácsás, A. (2017). Tartalomáramlás és hozzáférésa szerzői jog „fogyasztói korszakában”. Medias Res, 6(1).Pogácsás, A. (2017). Tartalomáramlás és hozzáférésa szerzői jog „fogyasztói korszakában”. Medias Res, 6(1).Pogácsás, A. (2023). Az internetfolklór szerzői jogi megítélése és annak hatása a szólásszabadságra. Medias Res, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.59851/imr.12.1.1Pogácsás, A. (2023). Az internetfolklór szerzői jogi megítélése és annak hatása a szólásszabadságra. Medias Res, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.59851/imr.12.1.1Pusztahelyi, R., & Stefán, I. (2022). Household Social Robots − Special Issues Relating to Data Protection. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Legal Studies, 11(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.47745/AUSLEG.2022.11.1.06Pusztahelyi, R., & Stefán, I. (2022). Household Social Robots − Special Issues Relating to Data Protection. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Legal Studies, 11(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.47745/AUSLEG.2022.11.1.06Rose, M. (1994). Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Harvard University Press Cambridge.Rose, M. (1994). Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Harvard University Press Cambridge.Salami, E. (2021). AI-generated works and copyright law: towards a union of strange bedfellows. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa189Salami, E. (2021). AI-generated works and copyright law: towards a union of strange bedfellows. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa189Sápi, E., & Halász, Cs. (2021). Mephisto hamarosan ötvenéves. Az alkotás és a véleménynyilvánítás szabadságának szerzői és személyiségi jogi ütközéspontjai. Medias Res, 10(1).Sápi, E., & Halász, Cs. (2021). Mephisto hamarosan ötvenéves. Az alkotás és a véleménynyilvánítás szabadságának szerzői és személyiségi jogi ütközéspontjai. Medias Res, 10(1).Schafer, B. et al. (2015). A fourth law of robotics? Copyright and the law and ethics of machine co-production. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23(3), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9169-7Schafer, B. et al. (2015). A fourth law of robotics? Copyright and the law and ethics of machine co-production. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23(3), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9169-7Schéré, E. (2018). Where is the Morality? Moral Rights in International Intellectual Property and Trade Law. Fordham International Law Journal, 41(3).Schéré, E. (2018). Where is the Morality? Moral Rights in International Intellectual Property and Trade Law. Fordham International Law Journal, 41(3).Simon, D. (2014). A szerzői jogi ágazatok gazdasági ágazatok súlya Magyarországon 4. Budapest, Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala.Simon, D. (2014). A szerzői jogi ágazatok gazdasági ágazatok súlya Magyarországon 4. Budapest, Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala.Stokes, S. (2012). Art and Copyright. Hart Publishing, Oxford.Stokes, S. (2012). Art and Copyright. Hart Publishing, Oxford.Sword, H. (2002). Ghostwriting Modernism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501717666Sword, H. (2002). Ghostwriting Modernism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501717666Vjayakumaran, A. (2021). NFTs and Copyright Quandary. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 12(5).Vjayakumaran, A. (2021). NFTs and Copyright Quandary. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 12(5).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.