digitallawJournal of Digital Technologies and LawJournal of Digital Technologies and Law2949-2483Kazan Innovative University named after V. G. Timiryasov10.21202/jdtl.2025.2ppfjubdigitallaw-508Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИEvolution of Copyright in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Analysis of Conflicts of Law and Judicial PrecedentsЭволюция авторского права в эпоху искусственного интеллекта: анализ правовых коллизий и судебных прецедентовhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0454-8220ЦимасФ.TzimasTh.

Цимас Фемистоклис – PhD в области государственного международного права и политологии, ассистент преподавателя

PS 66100, г. Комотини, Университетский кампус 

Themistoklis Tzimas – PhD (Public International Law and Political Science), Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Law

PS 66100, University Campus, Komotini

themis.tzimas@gmail.comУниверситет Фракии имени ДемокритаГрецияDemocritus University of ThraceGreece2025270320253135–64Copyright © Tzimas T., 20252025Цимас Ф.Tzimas T.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/508Objective

Objective: a comprehensive critical analysis of the modern legal regulation of artificial intelligence technologies arising at the junction of intellectual property and artificial intelligence norms. Special attention is paid to the study of conflicts between existing European copyright legislation and new technological realities.

Methods

Methods: the work uses an interdisciplinary approach, including historical, formal-legal and comparative-legal research methods. The historical method allowed tracing the evolution of legislative and doctrinal approaches to intellectual property regulation in the era of digitalization. The formal-legal method made it possible to conduct a detailed analysis of the legal norms of various states. The comparative-legal method provided an opportunity to compare different approaches to regulating relations in the use of artificial intelligence for creative activities.

Results

Results: the study examines the issues of copyright for works created using artificial intelligence, including complex aspects of determining authorship, as well as the issues of anthropocentrism in modern legislation. The author analyzes judicial precedents, mainly in the context of the European Union legislation, which is actively adapting to new technological challenges. Various approaches are investigated to determine the legal status of works created using artificial intelligence and their impact on traditional intellectual property concepts.

Scientific novelty

Scientific novelty: the article presents a unique comprehensive assessment of the impact of the AI creative capabilities on the fundamental intellectual property concepts. The scientific significance lies in the author’s original assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on copyright legislation, based on a detailed analysis of judicial precedents and doctrinal approaches. The author investigate the prospective development of legal regulation in the context of technological progress.

Practical significance

Practical significance: the paper proposes legal and governmental solutions aimed at creating a balanced and effective intellectual property regime in the era of artificial intelligence. Recommendations were developed to improve legislation, taking into account existing judicial precedents and the needs of the digital economy. The research results can be used to develop new regulations and improve the existing legal framework of artificial intelligence regulation.

Цель

Цель: комплексный критический анализ современных проблем в области правового регулирования технологий искусственного интеллекта, возникающих на стыке норм интеллектуальной собственности и искусственного интеллекта. Особое внимание уделяется исследованию коллизий между существующим европейским законодательством об авторском праве и новыми технологическими реалиями.

Методы

Методы: в работе применяется междисциплинарный подход, включающий исторический, формально-юридический и сравнительно-правовой методы исследования. Исторический метод позволил проследить эволюцию законодательных и доктринальных подходов к регулированию интеллектуальной собственности в эпоху цифровизации. Формальноюридический метод дал возможность провести детальный анализ правовых норм различных государств. Сравнительно-правовой метод обеспечил возможность сопоставления различных подходов к регулированию отношений, связанных с использованием искусственного интеллекта в творческой деятельности.   

Результаты

Результаты: в ходе исследования детально рассмотрены вопросы авторского права на произведения, созданные с помощью искусственного интеллекта, включая сложные аспекты определения авторства и проблемы антропоцентризма в современном законодательстве. Проведен анализ судебных прецедентов, преимущественно в контексте законодательства Европейского союза, которое активно адаптируется к новым технологическим вызовам. Исследованы различные подходы к определению правового статуса произведений, созданных с помощью искусственного интеллекта, и их влияние на традиционные концепции интеллектуальной собственности.

Научная новизна

Научная новизна: в статье впервые представлена комплексная оценка влияния творческих возможностей искусственного интеллекта на фундаментальные концепции интеллектуальной собственности. Научная значимость заключается в оригинальной авторской оценке воздействия технологий искусственного интеллекта на законодательство об авторском праве, основанной на детальном анализе судебных прецедентов и доктринальных подходов. Исследованы перспективы развития правового регулирования в условиях технологического прогресса.

Практическая значимость

Практическая значимость: в работе предложены конкретные правовые и государственные решения, направленные на формирование сбалансированного и эффективного режима интеллектуальной собственности в эпоху искусственного интеллекта. Разработаны рекомендации по совершенствованию законодательства с учетом существующих судебных прецедентов и потребностей цифровой экономики. Результаты исследования могут быть использованы при разработке новых нормативных актов и совершенствовании существующей правовой базы в области регулирования искусственного интеллекта.

авторское правозаконодательствоинтеллектуальная собственностьискусственный интеллектмеждисциплинарный подходправоправовое регулированиесудтехнологический прогрессцифровые технологииartificial intelligencecopyright lawcourtdigital technologiesintellectual propertyinterdisciplinary approachlawlegal regulationlegislationtechnological advancementReferencesAdler, A. (2009.). Against moral rights. California Law Review, 97, 263–301.Adler, A. (2009.). Against moral rights. California Law Review, 97, 263–301.Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law. New York: Oxford University Press.Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law. New York: Oxford University Press.Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.Bostrom, N., & Ćirkovic, M. (2008). Introduction. In N. Bostrom, M., Ćirkovic, & M. Rees (Eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bostrom, N., & Ćirkovic, M. (2008). Introduction. In N. Bostrom, M., Ćirkovic, & M. Rees (Eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Butler, T. L. (1982). Can a computer be an author – copyright aspects of artificial intelligence. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 4, 707.Butler, T. L. (1982). Can a computer be an author – copyright aspects of artificial intelligence. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 4, 707.Cabay, J., & Lambrecht, M. (2015). Remix prohibited: how rigid EU copyright laws inhibit creativity. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(5), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv015Cabay, J., & Lambrecht, M. (2015). Remix prohibited: how rigid EU copyright laws inhibit creativity. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(5), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv015Castelvecchi, D. (2016). Can we open the black box of AI? Nature, 538(7623), 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/538020aCastelvecchi, D. (2016). Can we open the black box of AI? Nature, 538(7623), 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/538020aCohen, Ju. E. (2006). Copyright, Commodification, and Culture: Locating the Public Domain. In L. Guibault, & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain (pp. 121–166). Kluwer Law Intl.Cohen, Ju. E. (2006). Copyright, Commodification, and Culture: Locating the Public Domain. In L. Guibault, & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain (pp. 121–166). Kluwer Law Intl.Favale, M., Kretschmer, M., & Torremans, P. C. (2016). Is there an EU Copyright Jurisprudence? An Empirical Analysis of the Workings of the European Court of Justice. The Modern Law Review, 79, 31–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12166Favale, M., Kretschmer, M., & Torremans, P. C. (2016). Is there an EU Copyright Jurisprudence? An Empirical Analysis of the Workings of the European Court of Justice. The Modern Law Review, 79, 31–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12166Fisher, W. W. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property. In S. Munzer (Ed.), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (pp. 168–199). Cambridge University Press.Fisher, W. W. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property. In S. Munzer (Ed.), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (pp. 168–199). Cambridge University Press.Gerdes, A. (2018). An Inclusive Ethical Design Perspective for a Flourishing Future with Artificial Intelligent Systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(4), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2018.62Gerdes, A. (2018). An Inclusive Ethical Design Perspective for a Flourishing Future with Artificial Intelligent Systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(4), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2018.62Gervais, D. J. (2019). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 105, 2053–2106.Gervais, D. J. (2019). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 105, 2053–2106.Ginsburg, J. C. (2018). People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 49, 131. 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 (IIC), 49, 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40319-018-0670-XGinsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(2), 343. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233885Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(2), 343. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233885Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30, 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30, 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4Grinmelmann, J. (2016). There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work – and It’s a Good Thing, Too. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 39, 403. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/rk8cmGrinmelmann, J. (2016). There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work – and It’s a Good Thing, Too. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 39, 403. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/rk8cmHallevy, G. (2018). Dangerous Robots – Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3121905Hallevy, G. (2018). Dangerous Robots – Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3121905Hansmann, H., & Santilli, M. (1997). Authors’ and artists’ moral rights: a comparative legal and economic analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1086/467990Hansmann, H., & Santilli, M. (1997). Authors’ and artists’ moral rights: a comparative legal and economic analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1086/467990Hashiguchi, M. (2017a). The global artificial intelligence revolution challenges patent eligibility laws. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 13(1).Hashiguchi, M. (2017a). The global artificial intelligence revolution challenges patent eligibility laws. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 13(1).Hashiguchi, M. (2017b). Artificial intelligence and the jurisprudence of patent eligibility in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 29(12), 3–15.Hashiguchi, M. (2017b). Artificial intelligence and the jurisprudence of patent eligibility in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 29(12), 3–15.Hattenbach, B., & Snyder, G. (2018). Rethinking the mental steps doctrine and other barriers to patentability of artificial intelligence. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 19(2), 313–339.Hattenbach, B., & Snyder, G. (2018). Rethinking the mental steps doctrine and other barriers to patentability of artificial intelligence. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 19(2), 313–339.Hemel, D. J., & Ouellette, L. L. (2013). Beyond the Patents–Prizes Debate. Texas Law Review, 92(2), 303. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245691Hemel, D. J., & Ouellette, L. L. (2013). Beyond the Patents–Prizes Debate. Texas Law Review, 92(2), 303. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245691Holst, K. (2006.). A case of bad credit?: The United States and the protection of moral rights in intellectual property law. Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal, 3(2), 105.Holst, K. (2006.). A case of bad credit?: The United States and the protection of moral rights in intellectual property law. Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal, 3(2), 105.Hristov, K. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma. IDEA, 57, 431.Hristov, K. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma. IDEA, 57, 431.Hugenholtz, P. B., & Quintais, J. P. (2021). Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? (2021). International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 52, 1190–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0Hugenholtz, P. B., & Quintais, J. P. (2021). Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? (2021). International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 52, 1190–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0Hutter, M. (2010). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Springer.Hutter, M. (2010). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Springer.Hutukka, P. (2023). Copyright Law in the European Union, the United States and China. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 54, 1044–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01357-0Hutukka, P. (2023). Copyright Law in the European Union, the United States and China. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 54, 1044–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01357-0Jaszi, P. (1992). On the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective Creativity. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 10(2), 293–320.Jaszi, P. (1992). On the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective Creativity. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 10(2), 293–320.Karppi, T., & Crawford, K. (2016). Social Media, Financial Algorithms and the Hack Crash. Theory Culture & Society, 33(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415583139Karppi, T., & Crawford, K. (2016). Social Media, Financial Algorithms and the Hack Crash. Theory Culture & Society, 33(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415583139Khoury, A. H. (2017). Intellectual Property Rights For “Hubots”: On The Legal Implications Of Human-Like Robots As Innovators And Creators. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 35(3), 635–668.Khoury, A. H. (2017). Intellectual Property Rights For “Hubots”: On The Legal Implications Of Human-Like Robots As Innovators And Creators. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 35(3), 635–668.Krauss, M. (1989). Property, Monopoly, and Intellectual Rights Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Symposium. Hamline Law Review, 12(2), 305.Krauss, M. (1989). Property, Monopoly, and Intellectual Rights Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Symposium. Hamline Law Review, 12(2), 305.Kur, A., Dreier, T., & Luginbuehl, S. (2013). European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials (2nd edn.). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.Kur, A., Dreier, T., & Luginbuehl, S. (2013). European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials (2nd edn.). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.Lake, B. Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., & Gershman, S. (2017). Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40, 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837Lake, B. Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., & Gershman, S. (2017). Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40, 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837Laton, D. (2016). Manhattan_Project.Exe: A Nuclear Option for the Digital Age. Catholic University Journal of Law & Technology, 25(1), 94.Laton, D. (2016). Manhattan_Project.Exe: A Nuclear Option for the Digital Age. Catholic University Journal of Law & Technology, 25(1), 94.Manderieux, L. (2010). Secured Transactions as a Tool for Better Use of Intellectual Property Rights and of Intellectual Property Licensing (including Patent Licensing). UNIDROIT Uniform Law Review, 2010-1, 447.Manderieux, L. (2010). Secured Transactions as a Tool for Better Use of Intellectual Property Rights and of Intellectual Property Licensing (including Patent Licensing). UNIDROIT Uniform Law Review, 2010-1, 447.Martinez, R. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: Distinguishing Between Types & Definitions. Nevada Law Journal, 19(3), 1015–1041.Martinez, R. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: Distinguishing Between Types & Definitions. Nevada Law Journal, 19(3), 1015–1041.McCarthy, J. (2008). The Well-Designed Child. Artificial Intelligence, 172(18). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.10.001McCarthy, J. (2008). The Well-Designed Child. Artificial Intelligence, 172(18). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.10.001Mizaras, V. (2012). Lithuania, In R. M. Hilty, & S, Ne´risson (Eds), Balancing copyright – a survey of national approaches (pp. 623–644). Springer, Berlin.Mizaras, V. (2012). Lithuania, In R. M. Hilty, & S, Ne´risson (Eds), Balancing copyright – a survey of national approaches (pp. 623–644). Springer, Berlin.Omohundro, S. M. (2008). The Basic AI Drives. In Pei Wang et al. (Eds.), Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings Of The First Agi Conference (p. 483).Omohundro, S. M. (2008). The Basic AI Drives. In Pei Wang et al. (Eds.), Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings Of The First Agi Conference (p. 483).Pila, J., & Torremans, P. (2019). European Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press.Pila, J., & Torremans, P. (2019). European Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press.Rai, Arti Kaur. (1999). Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science. Northwestern University Law Review, 94, 77. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.172032Rai, Arti Kaur. (1999). Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science. Northwestern University Law Review, 94, 77. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.172032Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. (2005). International copyright and neighbouring rights: The Berne Convention and beyond (2d ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. (2005). International copyright and neighbouring rights: The Berne Convention and beyond (2d ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Rosati, E. (2014). Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(7), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu034Rosati, E. (2014). Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(7), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu034Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3d ed.). Pearson.Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3d ed.). Pearson.Salzberger, E. (2006). Economic Analysis of the Public Domain In L. Guibault, & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain (Ch. III, pp. 27–59). Kluwer Law Intl.Salzberger, E. (2006). Economic Analysis of the Public Domain In L. Guibault, & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain (Ch. III, pp. 27–59). Kluwer Law Intl.Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot creativity: an incentive-based neighboring rights approach. European Intellectual Property Review, 42, 797–806. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3707741Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot creativity: an incentive-based neighboring rights approach. European Intellectual Property Review, 42, 797–806. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3707741Sganga, C., & Scalzini, S. (2017). From Abuse of Right to European Copyright Misuse: A New Doctrine for EU Copyright Law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 48(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0584-zSganga, C., & Scalzini, S. (2017). From Abuse of Right to European Copyright Misuse: A New Doctrine for EU Copyright Law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 48(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0584-zSobel, B. L. W. (2017). Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis. Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts, 41(1), 45–97. https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v41i1.2036Sobel, B. L. W. (2017). Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis. Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts, 41(1), 45–97. https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v41i1.2036Spector, L. (2006). Evolution of artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 170(18), 1251–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.009Spector, L. (2006). Evolution of artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 170(18), 1251–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.009Suchman, L., & Weber, J. (2016). Human-Machine Autonomies. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geib, H. Yan Liu, & C. Kreb (Eds.), Autonomous Weapon Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (pp. 39, 40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 49(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lix.236.433Suchman, L., & Weber, J. (2016). Human-Machine Autonomies. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geib, H. Yan Liu, & C. Kreb (Eds.), Autonomous Weapon Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (pp. 39, 40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 49(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lix.236.433Van Asselt, M. B. A., & Renn, O. (2011). Risk Governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.553730Van Asselt, M. B. A., & Renn, O. (2011). Risk Governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.553730van Eechoud, M. (2012). Along the road to uniformity: diverse readings of the Court of Justice Judgments on copyright works. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 3(1), 60–80.van Eechoud, M. (2012). Along the road to uniformity: diverse readings of the Court of Justice Judgments on copyright works. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 3(1), 60–80.van Gompel, S. (2014). Creativity, autonomy and personal touch. A critical appraisal of the CJEU’s originality test for copyright. In M. van Eechoud (Ed.), The work of authorship (pp. 95–143). Amsterdam: University Press. Walter, M., & von Lewinski, S. (2010). European copyright law: a commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.van Gompel, S. (2014). Creativity, autonomy and personal touch. A critical appraisal of the CJEU’s originality test for copyright. In M. van Eechoud (Ed.), The work of authorship (pp. 95–143). Amsterdam: University Press. Walter, M., & von Lewinski, S. (2010). European copyright law: a commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.Xalabarder, R. (2016). The Role of the CJEU in Harmonizing EU Copyright Law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 47, 635–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0509-2Xalabarder, R. (2016). The Role of the CJEU in Harmonizing EU Copyright Law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law – IIC, 47, 635–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0509-2Xu, M, David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges. International Journal of Financial Research, 9(2), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p90Xu, M, David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges. International Journal of Financial Research, 9(2), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p90Yanisky-Ravid, S., & Liu, X. (2018). When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 2215–2263.Yanisky-Ravid, S., & Liu, X. (2018). When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 2215–2263.Yong, Wan, & Hongxuyang, Lu. (2021). Copyright protection for AI-generated outputs: The experience from China. Computer Law & Security Review, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105581Yong, Wan, & Hongxuyang, Lu. (2021). Copyright protection for AI-generated outputs: The experience from China. Computer Law & Security Review, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105581Zurth, P. (2021). Artificial Creativity? A Case against Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 25(2).Zurth, P. (2021). Artificial Creativity? A Case against Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 25(2).

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