The Legal Nature of Ownership of Works Resulting from Artificial Intelligence

Subject Areas :

Mahsa Ebrahimi ¹ , Ali Komeilipour ^{2 *}

1 - Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Department of Law, Na.C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran.
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Na.C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran. (Corresponding Author).

Received: 2025-09-15 Accepted : 2025-10-05 Published : 2025-11-06

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Comparative Law, Imami Jurisprudence, Machine Works.,

Abstract :

The developments in artificial intelligence in recent years have raised fundamental questions in the field of intellectual property. Works produced by intelligent systems have blurred the traditional boundary between "human" and "tool" in the creation of works, and necessitate a rethinking of the principles of originality, creativity, and attribution of ownership. The present study, using an analytical-comparative method, while utilizing philosophical foundations (natural law, personality theory, and utilitarianism) and jurisprudential rules (contracts dependent on the purpose, no harm, and respect for the property of the Muslim), examines the legal framework of Iran and compares it with selected legal systems, including the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The innovation of the article is that, by combining philosophical-jurisprudential analysis and comparative data, it presents a local model for determining the legal nature of ownership of works resulting from artificial intelligence; a model that, on the one hand, responds to Iran's legislative necessities and, on the other hand, operates in line with international trends and the requirements of the knowledge-based economy. The findings of the research show that in Iranian law, due to the lack of explicit text, attribution of a work to a human as the owner can only be defended through jurisprudential rules and general legal principles; while some Western legal systems have either completely denied such works or have resorted to moderate solutions such as attribution to the user or developer. Accordingly, the main suggestion of the research is that the Iranian legislator, inspired by jurisprudential capacities and comparative experiences, should establish a flexible and fair framework for the ownership of works resulting from artificial intelligence in order to support innovation and investment, and prevent legal disputes and legislative vacuums in the future.

References:

امام خمینی. (۱۳۷۹). تحریر الوسیله. قم: مؤسسه تنظیم و نشر آثار امام خمینی.#
انصاری، مرتضی. (۱۴۱۵ق). المکاسب. قم: مکتبة الامام امیرالمؤمنین.#
بجنوردی، سید محمد موسوی. (1380). القواعد الفقهیه، ج2. تهران: مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی.#
حر عاملی، محمد بن حسن. (1412ق). وسائل الشیعة، ج18. قم: مؤسسة آل البیت، .#
حسینی، علی. (۱۳۹۹). مبانی فقهی حقوق مالکیت فکری. تهران: سمت.#
حسینی، علی. (1398). «حقوق مالکیت فکری و چالش‌های نوآوری‌های فناورانه». مجله حقوقی دادگستری، 82(4)، 201–225.#
شهید ثانی، زین‌الدین. (۱۴۱۳ق). الروضة البهیة فی شرح اللمعة الدمشقیة (ج۲). قم: دارالفکر.#
کاتوزیان، ناصر. (۱۴۰۲). حقوق مالکیت فکری در ایران. تهران: میزان.#
کاتوزیان، ناصر. (1386). حقوق مدنی: اموال و مالکیت. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.#
موسوی بجنوردی، سید محمد. (۱۳۸۶). القواعد الفقهیه. قم: دارالفکر.#
نجفی، محمدحسن. (1981م). جواهر الکلام فی شرح شرایع الإسلام، ج22. بیروت: دار احیاء التراث العربی.#


-Abbott, R. (2020). The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge University Press.
-Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA). (1988). UK Parliament
- European Parliament. (2017). Report on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. Brussels.
-European Parliament. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels, pp. 35-38
-Fisher, W. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property. Harvard Law School.
- Gervais, D. (2020). The Machine as Author. Iowa Law Review, 105(5), 2051–2106.
- Hegel, G.W.F. (2018). Philosophy of Right. Oxford University Press.

-Hettinger, E.C. (1989). Justifying Intellectual Property. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(1), 31–52.
-Kaminski, Margot E. (2017). Authorship, Disrupted: AI Authors in Copyright and First Amendment Law. UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 589-614.
- Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press.
- Moore, A. (2019). Natural Rights and Intellectual Property. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(1), 71–84.
-Samuelson, P. (2023). Why AI-authored works may not deserve copyright protection. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 38(2), 145–165.
- U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing AI-Generated Material. Washington D.C.
- WIPO. (2022). World Intellectual Property Report 2022: The Direction of Innovation. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.