PROBLEM ISSUES OF APPLYING CURRENT LEGAL REGULATIONS TO AI-CREATED OBJECTS

Systems using artificial intelligence (AI), as well as AI itself, are now undergoing rapid development and enhancement.Each year, the IT industry offers society increased opportunities and a broader range of applicability for AI.Such development is particularly evident in AI language models, which allow for direct communication with AI, and systems that generate audio and/or visual objects upon human request.Considering AI's growing capabilities in assisting or directly engaging in the creation of objects by humans or by AI under human requests, legislators face the challenge of determining the legal status of such objects.Since copyright law establishes specific requirements for authors and works, categorizing AI-created objects as copyright-protected works is now impossible.However, the lack of legal regulation regarding the status of relevant objects may create legal uncertainty and leave parties in legal relations unprotected.To regulate this issue, the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" was adopted in a new edition, introducing sui generis rights into legislation.Purpose.The present article aims to examine the current problems concerning the legal status of AI-created objects, particularly those arising with the adoption of the new edition of the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" regarding the regulation of non-original objects under sui generis.Methods.When writing the article, the author has applied research and special methods of scientific cognition, including analysis, synthesis, and comparison.The scientific novelty of the research involves the examination of the issues related to the application of current legislation to AI-created objects, taking into account substantive studies on the nature and characteristics of AI-generated objects compared to works protected by copyright.Such studies call into question the applicability of the current approach to AI-generated objects, treating them as non-original works.Results.The author identified inconsistencies between the nature of objects created via computer programs employing artificial intelligence and the legal definition assigned to such objects.Furthermore, it highlights the failure to consider the degree of human involvement in the creation of these objects when determining the ownership of proprietary copyright in relation to such objects.Conclusion.The article concludes the need for further improvement of existing copyright legislation in the context of sui generis rights to take into account a varying degree of human involvement in the creation of AI objects and expand user experience in protecting their rights to AI-created objects and/or those created with the assistance of AI.