Legal Regulation of Intellectual Property in the Field of Artificial Intelligence

This study aimed to identify differences between contemporary approaches to protecting intellectual outputs created or used with artificial intelligence and to establish criteria connecting rights, obligations, and liability to human contributions at successive stages of the technological process. Conducted in August 2026, the study examined a purposive, non-random sample of 45 legislative, judicial, administrative, and official analytical documents from the World Intellectual Property Organization, the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. The documentary cutoff was 27 August 2026. Documents were examined against 13 criteria encompassing input authorization, text and data mining, rights reservations, training transparency, authorship, creative control, output protection, special protection regimes, inventorship, human inventive contribution, liability, trade secrets, and remedies. European Union materials constituted 28.9% of the sample, followed by United States materials at 24.4%, United Kingdom materials at 20.0%, Ukrainian materials at 15.6%, and international institutional materials at 11.1%. The European Union instruments connect distinct mining exceptions with rights reservations and general-purpose model transparency; the United States materials emphasize fair use and case-specific analysis. United Kingdom legislation retains a computer-generated works provision, while Ukrainian legislation establishes separate protection for qualifying non-original computer-generated objects. Human contributions remain central to ordinary authorship and inventorship, although these special output regimes prevent treating that convergence as absolute. No common numerical threshold for sufficient human contribution emerged from the selected documents. The findings support a staged analysis distinguishing inputs, model operations, and outputs, with separate assessments of authorization, attribution, and responsibility. These conclusions concern the selected documentary corpus rather than an exhaustive account of every applicable rule or jurisdiction.