Who is the author: the question in the age of artificial intelligence
When a system based on artificial intelligence creates material or fully determines it, the first legal question concerns authorship: does copyright arise in such material at all, and to whom does it belong? In Georgia this question is governed by the Law of Georgia on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. The law contains no separate norm on artificial intelligence, so the answer must be constructed from its foundational concepts: what is an object of copyright, when is a work deemed created, and who is deemed an author. Below we explain these concepts and show where the case of material produced by artificial intelligence creates a distinctive difficulty.
What is an object of copyright
Under the law, copyright extends to works of science, literature and art that are the result of intellectual-creative activity — irrespective of the purpose of the work, its merit, genre, volume, form or means of expression. Two features are decisive: first, that the work is the product of creative activity, and second, that it exists in an objective form. The law draws the boundary expressly: copyright does not extend to ideas, methods, processes, systems, means, concepts, principles, discoveries or facts — even if they are expressed, described, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work. This norm matters greatly in the practice of artificial intelligence: the text of an instruction, an idea or a request that a user gives to a system is not an object of copyright unless it has been shaped into a separate work. The output side must be examined separately — the question is always whether the result carries the trace of creative activity fixed in an objective form.
Categories of protected works and derivative works
The law enumerates the categories of works: literary works — a book, brochure, article, computer program and others; dramatic and musical-dramatic works, choreographic works and other stage works; musical works with or without text; audiovisual works; works of sculpture, painting, graphics, lithography and other fine art; decorative-applied and monumental art; theatre-design works; architectural, urban-planning and landscape-garden works; photographic works and works created by means analogous to photography — a still frame of an audiovisual work not being deemed a photographic work; maps, plans, sketches and illustrations relating to geology, geography, cartography and other fields; derivative works, namely translations, screenplays of literary works, adaptations, screen versions, reviews, stagings, compilations, musical arrangements and other transformations; composite works — collections, encyclopedias, anthologies, databases and other works that are the result of creative activity in the selection and arrangement of material; and other works.
For our context the regime of derivative and composite works is especially significant: their protection is exercised regardless of whether the works on which they are based or which they contain are themselves objects of copyright, and the protection of derivative and composite works is exercised equally with the original. This makes the derivative-work frame a natural analytical starting point when human creative contribution and machine generation are combined. The regime of computer programs deserves separate note as well: protection extends to computer programs of every kind, including operating systems, which may be expressed in any language and form, including source text and object code — a program is protected as a literary work.
When and how copyright arises
Copyright in works of science, literature and art arises from the moment of their creation. A work is deemed created when it is expressed in some objective form that allows its perception and reproduction. Neither registration of the work, nor special decoration, nor compliance with any other formality is necessary for the origin or exercise of copyright — the right springs into being together with the appearance of the result. To give notice of the right, the holder of the exclusive right may use the copyright protection mark placed on every copy of the work, consisting of three elements: the letter C in a circle, the name of the rights holder, and the year of the first publication of the work. The absence of formalities cuts both ways in the artificial-intelligence setting: rights appear without paperwork, but so do disputes about whose activity produced the work.
The presumption of authorship and why it matters
The law establishes a presumption of authorship: a person indicated in an appropriate manner as the author on the original or a copy of the work is deemed to be its author unless the contrary is proven. This provision applies also where the work is published under a pseudonym, if the author is generally known by that pseudonym. Where a work is published under a pseudonym (unless the author is generally known by it) or anonymously, the publisher whose name or designation is appropriately indicated on the work is deemed to be the author's representative, with the right to defend the author's rights and ensure their exercise — until the author reveals identity. In practice the presumption shifts the evidentiary burden: whoever is properly indicated as author holds the starting position, and the challenger must prove otherwise. That is why the manner of indicating authorship on generated material, and the records of how that material was produced, are not administrative details but the core of future proof.
What these concepts mean for material created by artificial intelligence
The chain described above — intellectual-creative activity, objective form, moment of creation, indication of the author — is built around the author as a creating person. The law does not state that a non-human system can be deemed an author, and this should be said plainly: identifying an author for a result produced solely by a system is legally difficult and contestable. The picture differs where a person participates creatively in shaping the result and the system acts as an instrument: there the law's general norms apply to the material in full, and copyright can arise just as it does for works created by a human hand. Each concrete case requires its own assessment: who participated in the process and how, what form the result takes, and how authorship is indicated. We assist with that assessment and build the documentary foundation that will protect your position in a dispute.