In its most basic definition, artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the theory and development of computer systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages. Nowadays, AI applications are actively used in many fields, often without people even realizing it, leading to significant debates about their implications in law.
AI, with its abilities to perceive, infer, learn, and imitate, can create artistic products in visual and auditory forms. This raises the issue of whether these products can be considered "works" and who should be recognized as their author.
Currently, the global consensus is that AI cannot claim rights over the works it produces because copyright protection is only granted to the creative expression of the human mind. For instance, the United States Copyright Office rejected Steven Thaler's application for copyright protection in 2022 for his AI-generated artwork "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," stating that the painting was created entirely by AI with minimal human input. The decision emphasized the relationship between the human mind and creative expression as a vital element of copyright. Similarly, in the 2019 "Feilin v. Baidu" case in China, the court ruled that AI-generated works cannot be subject to copyright and that neither the creator nor the user of the AI could benefit from such rights.
Under the Turkish Intellectual and Artistic Works Law No. 5846 ("Law"), a work is defined as any intellectual and artistic product bearing the characteristics of its owner, classified under categories such as literary and scientific works, musical works, fine arts, or cinematographic works. Therefore, for something to be considered a work under the Law, it must carry the personal characteristics of its creator, and according to the dominant view in the doctrine, creative ideas or works are exclusive to natural persons. As a result, it is argued that works can only be created by natural persons under the Law. Indeed, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation[1] ruled in 2018 that the author of a work must be a natural person capable of creative activity.
Therefore, in the context of Turkish law, it seems impossible for a product created solely by AI to be considered a work and to benefit from the rights and protections provided by the Law. However, given the rapid advancement of AI, we believe that once issues related to granting AI legal personality and defining the scope of such personality are clarified, significant amendments to our legislation regarding authorship will be necessary, expanding the definition of authorship to include AI-generated works.
[1] 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No. 2016/11693, Decision No. 2018/4232, Date: 04.06.2018