INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 571
IMPROVING THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
PRODUCTS: AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF CONDITIONAL LEGAL PROTECTION
Shomurodov Sanjar Ilhamovich
Graduate student of Tashkent State Law University
Email:
Te: +998971392213
Abstract:
As a result of the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, the
number of products (texts, images, inventions, etc.) created using SI is increasing. In traditional
legal systems, there are uncertainties about copyright and the legal status of such products. This
article proposes a model of integrated conditional legal protection (IShHH) in order to
strengthen the legal protection of products created by Si. The model, based on the principles
of ”conditional legal status“ and ”creative management", assumes the division of SI products
according to the degree of human participation into auxiliary, semi-autonomous and fully
autonomous types. For each type, the appropriate legal status is proportionally determined and
innovative legal protection mechanisms are introduced through the institute of “creative
curator”, a special registry, as well as arbitration mechanisms.
Keywords:
artificial intelligence product, copyright, conditional legal status, creative
management, creative curator, legal protection.
Introduction.
With the help of artificial intelligence technologies, in many areas where human
creative activity was previously required, text, drawing, musical composition, or even scientific
discoveries are now automatically created. Products created in this way pose new questions to
the traditional intellectual property rights system: for example, who will be the author of such
works, in what order their copyright protection will be carried out, or who will be responsible
for the damage caused by the product. Many current national and international legal norms
recognize only human authorship and creativity. For example, in the judicial practice of the
European Union, it is argued that works created entirely and independently are not protected by
copyright, since they lack human creative input (1). Similarly, the US Copyright Office noted
that a work created entirely by artificial intelligence cannot claim copyright, only this a part can
receive protection if a sufficient creative contribution of a person is made to it.
In the legislation of Uzbekistan, copyright is also granted only in relation to human creativity –
for example, according to the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “on Copyright and Related
Rights”, the author of a work can only be an individual, and artificial intelligence is not
mentioned as a “creative” subject. Since the current legislation does not define the legal status
of the creator or product of Si, the legal protection of content created using SI is unclear. This,
in turn, leads to a serious legal gap in the commercialization of such products, the
implementation of copyrights and dispute resolution. In the case when the authorship of works
created with the participation of si has not been established, for example, who commercialized
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 572
them, it is quite natural for difficulties to arise in matters of concluding contracts or liability for
offenses.
Currently, active research is underway worldwide on the legal regulation of artificial
intelligence products. Dialogues on the topic “artificial intelligence and intellectual property”
have been organized within the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), and an exchange of views continues between states on the authorship of works created
by AI. And in the European Union, in 2023, for the first time in history, a comprehensive
artificial intelligence procedure (AI Act) was adopted, aimed at various levels of risk. At the
same time, a special EU directive on liability for artificial intelligence was drafted, which
provides for legal mechanisms to facilitate compensation for damage caused by artificial
intelligence systems (3). The EU Directive on liability for existing products was also revised,
and norms such as the liability of an artificial intelligence developer as a “product developer”
were introduced. Although these changes are aimed at strengthening the legal protection of
persons affected by artificial intelligence, on the other hand, one of the issues that has not yet
been resolved at the EU legislative level is the copyright status of works created using artificial
intelligence. The European authorities plan to develop appropriate regulations, recognizing the
need for legal regulation of copyright issues in the context of artificial intelligence.
Thus, the improvement of legal protection mechanisms for artificial intelligence products has
become an urgent issue. This article aims to address this issue and proposes a new model called
Integrated Conditional Legal Protection (Ishh). The main idea of the model is to establish the
legal status of works and products created by artificial intelligence conditionally, that is,
differentially depending on human participation in their creation, as well as to introduce the
principle of creative management. This approach is innovative and aims to fill existing gaps in
the legal protection of artificial intelligence products, while preserving the human factor in an
integrated way. The following parts of the article describe the theoretical foundations of this
model, the applied research methods, the results obtained and their discussion, as well as the
conclusions.
Methodology.
In this study, methods of legal analysis and comparative comparison
were used. First of all, foreign experience and international norms on the copyright legal status
of products created by artificial intelligence were studied, which were comparative analyzed by
the legislation of Uzbekistan. In particular, WIPO materials, EU documents on artificial
intelligence, as well as the experience of certain countries (such as the United Kingdom and
China) were analyzed in terms of the point of legal status. The study harmonized the methods
of analysis, doctrinal approach and comparison of the content of regulatory legal acts. At the
same time, in the development of the conceptual framework of the IShHH model proposed by
the author, a scientific-theoretical approach was used, as well as analytical methods such as the
classification of artificial intelligence products into classes. SI products were divided into
auxiliary, semi-autonomous and fully autonomous categories, and the current state and needs of
each were analyzed separately. The resulting scientific conclusions and proposals were
compared with the legal and regulatory framework, on the basis of the practical significance of
the model.
Results.
According to the model of integrated conditional legal protection (IShHH),
artificial intelligence products are divided into three main categories, depending on the level of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 573
human participation in their creation: auxiliary, semi-autonomous and fully autonomous
products. This classification makes it possible to define the legal status for each category in a
proportional (proportional) way, that is, the higher the human creative contribution, the more
complete copyright protection the work has; conversely, when the Independent share of
artificial intelligence is higher, legal protection is given in a conditional and limited form.
* Auxiliary SI products. This category includes cases where artificial intelligence acts
only as an instrument (weapon, medium). That is, when creating a work, a person is creative,
and SI performs only an auxiliary function (for example, text editing, gathering information or
as a simple generative tool). The work created in this situation should be fully copyrighted in
the traditional order, since it is actually considered the “product of the author's own mental
creation”. In the IShHH model, no particular conditional status is required for auxiliary type SI
works – they are the object of copyright in the usual order, and a person (the person who
created the initial idea or made creative decisions) is recognized as the author. This approach is
also consistent with foreign practice; for example, in the United States such works may receive
copyright protection if the SI is only a tool and the work has sufficient human creative decision.
• Semi-autonomous SI products.
This category includes works created by the
collaboration of artificial intelligence and human creator. In this case, artificial intelligence
generates a certain degree of independent content, but there is a human assignment, control or
final editing. For example, a person gives a number of creative instructions (prompts) to the
artificial intelligence model and creatively selects, integrates, or edits the resulting results. In
this case, the authorship and originality of the work will depend on both man and artificial
intelligence. In accordance with the IShHH model, a conditional legal status is introduced for
semi-autonomous works: that is, copyrights are assigned to the human creator, but due to the
large contribution of artificial intelligence, these rights are strengthened by some restrictions
and conditions. For example, when registering semi-autonomous works as an object of
copyright, it is proposed that the work is created with the participation of artificial intelligence
and is recorded in a special register (below, the registry mechanism is covered in detail). This
conditional status serves to more accurately determine the origin of the work in future disputes
or questions about authorship, while copyrighting the work. The approach to semi-autonomous
works is partially similar to foreign experience: for example, some countries recognize
copyright in works from the result of human-SI cooperation, but carry out the assessment on a
case-by-case basis due to the requirement of traditional “creative contribution”. In the IShHH
model, however, this process is institutionally established and legal clarity is increased.
• Fully autonomous SI products.
This category includes works created independently
by the artificial intelligence system, without the direct creative contribution of a person. Current
legal norms do not usually protect such works by copyright, since they do not contain “the
author's personal creative contribution”. The IShHH model, on the other hand, offers
conditional legal status as a separate mechanism in such cases so as not to leave the work
without intact legal protection. According to him, if a completely autonomous work created by
artificial intelligence is created without human creativity, its legal status is determined through
a new concept called “conditional authorship”. In this case, a person or organization is
appointed as the creative curator of the work, and it is this subject who receives the status of the
“responsible author” for the work before the law. The curator in question registers the work
created by artificial intelligence in a special register, documents information such as the origin
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 574
of the work, the time of its creation, the SI technology used. Only then can this work be
conditionally subject to copyright protection. Conditional copyright, unlike normal copyright,
only takes effect when certain conditions are met (e.g., included in the register), and its validity
period, size, may be limited. Such an approach also gives a certain degree of legal protection to
artificial intelligence products, but at the same time also takes into account the fact that the
work is not created by man. It should be noted that some countries are applying specific
approaches to such situations: for example, in the United Kingdom, a program or an ordering
person is recognized as an “author” for computer-generated works, and protection is issued in a
limited order. The conditional legal status offered under the IShHH model includes the same
but more extensive institutional measures (detailed below).
The proposed model provides for the introduction of a set of legal and organizational
mechanisms for effective functioning. The main ones are the Institute of creative curators, The
Register of artificial intelligence products and a special arbitration mechanism. These elements
serve to ensure the principle of” creative management", that is, the integration of artificial
intelligence creativity into the legal environment under human control and management.
* Creative curator Institute.
In the IShHH model, a” creative curator " is defined as a
person (or organization) responsible for works created by artificial intelligence. The task of the
curator is to officially adopt the product created by SI, assess its degree of originality, edit or
filter it if necessary, and then implement the rights on this work. Legally, the person of the
creative curator is given the status of a conditional author. This means that although the curator
is not directly creative in creating the work, the law recognizes him as the owner of limited
rights over the work. It is on the name of the curator that the work is registered, the
implementation of copyright (for example, licensing, author marking) is performed by the
curator. In return, the curator also takes on certain obligations: for example, checking the
originality of the work and the absence of illegal elements (plagiarism or others), responding to
claims over the work when the need arises. Thus, the curator, on the one hand, takes legal
ownership of the work (as an authorized person), and on the other hand also assumes
responsibility for it. This approach is also consistent with the EU principles of responsibility for
AI damage – for example, according to the newly adopted norms of the EU, the person
providing the AI system (provider) is set to be equated to the manufacturer of the product and
responsible for the damage. The creative curator applies exactly this principle of” human
responsibility " to the field of copyright (4). At this point, it should be noted that in the
legislation of Uzbekistan there is already a similar construction on the example of cinema
works: according to the current law, the copyright of cinema works can be granted to a film
producer (legal entity). Hence, the concept of a non-author subject owning a copyright is not
alien to local law. The Institute of curators in the IShHH model applies this approach to
artificial intelligence products.
*
Register of artificial intelligence products. Another important element of the legal protection
of works created by SI is the introduction of a special register. This National Register operates
as a database that serves to list all works and inventions created by artificial intelligence. If the
creative curator wants to copyright an artificial intelligence product, he will first need to
register this work in the register. When registering, detailed information about the work is
entered: date of creation, name of an artificial intelligence program or model, version,
information about the applied database or preparatory model, name of the curator (person in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 575
charge), etc. The introduction of this register gives several positive results. First, it becomes
easier to prove the fact and timing of the creation of an artificial intelligence work (which, for
example, can be an important argument in copyright disputes in court). Second, the work's
creation by artificial intelligence would be openly documented, making their subsequent legal
treatment transparent. Thirdly, it becomes possible to verify the rights of other authors through
the registry data – for example, in the process of inclusion in the register, the curator may be
obliged to confirm that the structure of the work does not contain copyrighted elements of third
parties. Through this, the Prevention of plagiarism and offenses is achieved. The idea of setting
up a special register is also consistent with the activities of international platforms related to
intellectual property: for example, WIPO offers various objects (patent, brand, etc.k.) online
registration systems exist and are globally integrated. At the national level, the Register of
works of SI, on the other hand, can also set the stage for international recognition and
protection of artificial intelligence products by exchanging information with similar bases of
other countries in the future.
* Arbitration mechanism. The introduction of a special arbitration or mediatorship mechanism
for conflict resolution on artificial intelligence products is another significant component of the
IShHH model. As you know, disputes related to artificial intelligence (for example, copyright
problems, offenses, liability issues) can be very complex and have technical details (5). In the
traditional judicial system, it is likely that the consideration of such disputes will take a lot of
time and resources, as well as that the technological knowledge of the judges will not be
enough. Therefore, according to the proposed model, a special arbitration board is formed to
consider disputes related to artificial intelligence products. This board includes experts in
intellectual property law, experts in artificial intelligence technology, and representatives of
other fields depending on the need. The arbitration process is carried out in compliance with the
principles of justice, but on the basis of simplified and quick procedures. The parties may
voluntarily agree to consider the dispute in this arbitration, or the legislation may place such
disputes in the category applicable to arbitration in a binding manner. The special arbitration
mechanism provides speed and competence in resolving disputes in the field of artificial
intelligence, resulting in an increase in the effectiveness of legal protection of copyright objects.
In addition, the practice that is formed through arbitration decisions can also serve as
methodological assistance to the courts in the future. When taken at the international level, the
arbitration and Mediation Center under WIPO specializes in resolving intellectual property
disputes and also covers issues related to artificial intelligence. Therefore, it is desirable that the
arbitration mechanism, which is organized at the national level, also works in cooperation with
international bodies such as WIPO, attracting international experience.
The institutional elements described above – curator, register and arbitration-serve to practically
ensure the principle of “Creative Management”. According to this principle, human control and
control over the process of creation by artificial intelligence and its results are established. As a
result, no matter how autonomously artificial intelligence operates, its products cannot be
deprived of human responsibility and legal support. Such an approach on the one hand does not
interfere with the full use of the creative capabilities of artificial intelligence, and on the other
hand reduces legal uncertainty and concerns (6).
Discussion. The proposed IShHH model manifests itself as an innovative and balanced
approach to the legal protection of artificial intelligence products. Its innovativeness is that
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 576
where traditional law recognizes only human creativity, this model brings artificial intelligence
creativity into the legal arena, albeit indirectly. At the same time, the model leaves the human
factor in the center – that is, the control of legal responsibility and creativity is still assigned to
the human representative (creative curator). This approach is consistent with current
international trends, as it has been observed that the world community is in favor of giving
artificial intelligence the status of an independent subject of law and assigning responsibility
and rights to humans. For example, although the European Parliament has previously
considered proposals to give artificial intelligence the status of an “electronic person”, in
practice the direction of attributing legal responsibility to humans has remained a priority. The
IShHH model also builds on this same principle by mediating the legal treatment of works
created by artificial intelligence through a human-curator.
Considering the comparative advantages of the model, it covers several problems at once. First
of all, it fills the gap in copyright: fully autonomous SI works can also now have legal
protection, albeit conditionally. This in turn encourages innovators and creators to create new
works through the SI, as their labor and resources are under legal protection without being
wasted. At the same time, the model does not violate even the basic principles of copyright –
because still an element of human approval and responsibility is being introduced for each work.
For example, the criterion Sina (noted in the Infopaq work), which is required in European law
“the work of the author is the product of his own mental creativity”, is satisfied in our model
through the curator: the curator confirms his creative value in the process of receiving and
formalizing the work (7).
In addition, the IShHH model increases legal accuracy and predictability. In its current state,
the introduction of the product created by artificial intelligence into commercial circulation or
doing business using it poses a great legal risk – since the identity of its author is unknown, its
legal status is abstract. The proposed model provides a clear solution to the issue: through the
curator and register mechanism, the “legal passport” of each work appears. This saves not only
authorship, but also responsibility in the necessary cases from being left without an addressee.
For example, if a work created by artificial intelligence violates someone's copyright or if there
is content that goes against the public order, the curator is held accountable. Thus, the IShHH
model also protects the interests of society, since artificial intelligence does not function
“faceless” – there is always one responsible subject behind it.
When we dwell on the issue of compliance of the model with international norms, it is mainly
aimed at adapting the current legal principles to the new conditions. Discussions within WIPO
suggest that most states are cautious about developing a separate legal regime for works created
by artificial intelligence, but at the same time acknowledge the existence of a problem. While
Yei's initiatives such as AI Act and AI Liability Directive are primarily aimed at protecting
individuals affected by AI, our model complements this approach by focusing on the self-
defense of AI products. The two approaches can complement each other: e.g., Yei's liability
norms make it easier for those affected by artificial intelligence to receive compensation, while
the IShHH model provides legal procedures around works created by artificial intelligence,
such works reduce the number of conflicts caused or simplify their resolution.
Of course, there may also be certain difficulties in applying the proposed model to the
implementation. In particular, in order to introduce the Institute of” creative curator", it is
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 577
required to include clear concepts and criteria in the legislation (for example, who can become a
curator, what are their rights and obligations, the criterion for assessing the contribution of the
curator to the work, etc.). Also, technical-infrastructure and qualified personnel will be
necessary for maintaining a register. And how the arbitration system interacts with the judicial
system (the recognition of arbitration decisions by the courts, the possibility of annulment,
etc.k.) it is necessary to develop legal procedures. However, if these difficulties are solved, the
necessary conditions are created for the effective operation of the model.
Conclusion.
Products created by artificial intelligence are setting new tasks for intellectual
property law in today's digital age. The Integrated conditional legal protection model proposed
in this article will take the field as a compromise solution in the legal protection of artificial
intelligence products. While the principle of “conditional legal status”, lying on the basis of the
Model, allows you to determine the legal status of the work based on the degree of artificial
intelligence participation, the principle of “creative management” retains the role of control and
responsibility of a person. The results of the study showed that by introducing the IShHH
Model: 1) works created by artificial intelligence are also covered in the field of legal
protection; 2) copyright uncertainties are eliminated and legal guarantees are created for
creators and innovators; 3) the system of conflict resolution associated with artificial
intelligence products is improved; 4) national legislation is updated in accordance with
international trends. The theoretical foundations and comparative analysis of the model show
that it can and is practically introduced. In place of the conclusion, it is worth noting that it is an
urgent task to find a balance between the effective implementation of achievements in the field
of artificial intelligence and the provision of intellectual property protection. It is expected that
such approaches as IShHH will help to achieve this very balance, create a solid legal framework
for innovation related to artificial intelligence in the Uzbek legal system.
List of literature used:
1. High-Level Expert Group on AI. A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Scientific
Disciplines.
European
Commission,
18
Dec.
2018,
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai_hleg_definition_of_ai_18_december_1.pdf.
2. U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. 3rd ed. – 2021. –
§306. – URL: https://copyright.gov/comp3/
3. European Commission. Proposal for a Directive on Liability for Artificial Intelligence (AI
Liability
Directive).
Brussels,
2022.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0496
4. Rahmatian A. Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Public Domain: A New Dilemma //
European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR). — 2023. — Vol. 45, No. 7. — B. 421–429.
5. Denicola R. Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works // Rutgers
University Law Review. – 2017. – Vol. 69. – B. 251–268.
6. Bridy A. The Evolution of Authorship: Work Made by Code // Columbia Journal of Law &
the Arts. – 2016. – Vol. 39, No. 3. – B. 395–441.
