Examining the Challenges of Intellectual Property in AI-Generated Productions

The latest improvements in artificial intelligence (AI) raise new challenges for intellectual property laws, particularly concerning the inventorship issue in AI-assisted inventions - that is, those in which AI is used in the inventive process. While most jurisdictions allow only a natural person to be considered the inventor, the question of how to deal with AI-assisted inventions remains relevant. Namely, what is the nature and contribution of AI tools in an AI-assisted invention that would prevent a human from being recognized as its inventor? The main challenge in addressing this question is the lack of case law on the issue. It is reasonable to assume that with the development of AI and the growing interest in its use in the inventive process, new cases will naturally arise, which in turn will harmonize and address the inventorship issue in AI-assisted inventions to some extent. However, this process will take significant time and may not keep pace with the rapid development of AI, nor fully address the new problems that arise alongside AI advancements. This research proposes the conditions of an experiment to create relevant case law. This experiment could be initiated by society, involving stakeholders specializing in AI. The article also proposes a methodology for conducting the experiment and selecting cases that best reflect the current state of AI use in the inventive process. Conducting such an approach will help identify the most effective methods for measuring human contribution to AI-assisted inventions when determining inventorship.

This comprehensive study introduces an advanced Artificial Intelligence for Indian Legal Question Answering (AILQA) system tailored to the Indian legal context. AILQA leverages a variety of embedding and generative models, including recent Large Language Models (LLMs), to address the unique challenges posed by the intricate and diverse nature of Indian legal texts and to enhance the accuracy and reliability of responses to legal questions. We conducted rigorous evaluations using both lexical and semantic metrics, enriched by expert legal feedback, to ensure relevance and accuracy. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) paradigm in improving answer quality, particularly in complex legal domains. Additionally, we assessed performance on standardized tests such as the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), thereby providing a robust benchmark for practical applications. Under the study's evaluation protocol, some AI-generated responses received higher ratings than the available reference answers, particularly when they contained accurate and relevant supporting details. This finding is specific to the evaluated dataset and rating criteria and should not be interpreted as evidence that the models generally outperform qualified legal professionals. We also discuss the challenges encountered, such as the need for precise context and the risks of model hallucination, and propose directions for future research to further refine AI capabilities in the legal field. This study aims to pave the way for enhanced legal decision-support systems, making them more accessible and effective for legal professionals and the public alike.

Generative artificial intelligence now synthesizes photorealistic imagery, audio, and video at a cost that defeats traditional forensic intuition. The legal consequences span three regimes studied so far in isolation: international operational law, domestic procedure, and product regulation. This article presents a unified evidentiary framework that maps cryptographic content provenance, robust statistical watermarking, and zero knowledge attestation to the proof requirements of each regime. We define a five tier threat model spanning naive regeneration, adversarial laundering, cross model regeneration, active watermark removal, and insider provenance forgery. We release a public benchmark of 12000 generated items across image, audio, and video modalities under six laundering pipelines for 72000 evaluation samples. We evaluate four representative schemes and report true positive rate at fixed false positive rate, robustness area under the curve, computational overhead, and a regime conditioned legal sufficiency score. We translate empirical detection bounds into legal sufficiency thresholds for command decisions under the law of armed conflict, for criminal and civil admissibility under domestic procedure, and for persistence audits under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act and analogous regimes. The result is a reproducible reference pipeline, a public benchmark, and model annexes that lawyers, engineers, and operators can deploy together.