Authored By: Shatha Adel Abu Rayyash
Law college/mutah uni bachelor’s/al-ahliyya Amman uni/
Abstract:
In light of the remarkable developments in the modern era and during the recent technological revolution, artificial intelligence has emerged in its various forms and entered all fields, including innovation and creativity, which entail rights and obligations if they result from a natural person whose legal existence is guaranteed by law. But is it permissible to apply what is said about the innovation of a natural person to artificial intelligence, which is described by the creator of ideas and authors in particular?
Those of us who are familiar with the latest developments may have noticed the beginning of the legalization of artificial intelligence and its use, exploitation, and disposal through legislation that regulates its use within the context of modern developments.
This question will be answered in this research, which is divided as follows: Chapter 1: The General Framework of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Section I: The nature of artificial intelligence and its legal applications Section II: Copyright: Concept and Types
Chapter Two: Legal Issues Related to Artificial Intelligence Outputs in Light of Jordanian Law
Chapter One:
The General Framework for Artificial Intelligence and Copyright
In the modern technological age, which has seen a proliferation of outputs, the digital environment has become a vast arena for displaying all kinds of content, including creative content. This raises many questions about the nature and scope of copyright, which will be addressed in this chapter as follows.
First Discussion:
What is artificial intelligence and its legal applications?
There are many definitions of artificial intelligence, due to the fact that artificial intelligence is approached from different angles, making it difficult to reduce it to a single specific definition. Naturally, definitions of artificial intelligence differ from a technical perspective to a legal perspective. Therefore, the definitions and concepts of artificial intelligence will be addressed to arrive at a comprehensive and clear definition that is agreed upon as follows:
The scientific definition of artificial intelligence:
From a scientific perspective, artificial intelligence is defined as: a scientific field that develops systems capable of exhibiting intelligent behavior in specific contexts, influenced by logic, mathematics, and computer science. (1).
The contemporary regulatory definition of artificial intelligence
Many documents and organizations have addressed artificial intelligence in their definitions, including the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI ACT), which defines artificial intelligence as: “An automated system designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and may exhibit adaptability after deployment, inferring from inputs how to generate outputs that affect physical or digital environments. (2)
Artificial intelligence is also defined as a scientific field that aims to develop systems capable of exhibiting intelligent behavior in specific contexts, inspired by logic, mathematics, and computer science, where artificial intelligence works to simulate human mental abilities, such as thinking, learning, and decision-making. (3).
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines artificial intelligence as a machine-based system that infers from inputs to generate predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that affect the environment, with degrees of autonomy and adaptability.
The purpose of reviewing definitions is to determine the applicable legal scope, which directly reflects on intellectual property, particularly copyright.
The researcher believes that artificial intelligence is any system based on algorithms capable of inferring from input data to generate outputs that can influence the digital reality with varying degrees of independence and adaptability.
The second requirement
Artificial intelligence applications and their legal challenges This requirement will be addressed through artificial intelligence applications first and its legal challenges second, as follows:
First: Artificial intelligence applications related to law
There are many AI applications closely related to law that affect laws and how they are applied to material facts, the most important of which are as follows:
- Production of literary and artistic works
Generative artificial intelligence systems are no longer just a tool, but have become capable of producing literary and artistic works that sometimes rival human intellectual productions in their organization and arrangement. It is difficult for the average person to distinguish between their creative output and that of humans, as it rivals human production and has begun to be accepted in specialized centers. One of the most prominent examples of this is a portrait created by an intelligent system and sold at Sotheby’s in 2018 for $432,000. If this indicates anything, it indicates the art market’s recognition of intelligent technical outputs and their material value (1).
This development raises an unavoidable legal question: Is it possible to grant copyright protection to artistic and literary outputs of artificial intelligence? Can technical artistic outputs be considered to have the same legal protection as human creativity?
1) The portrait painting Edmond de Belamy is a work of art created in 2018 by an artificial intelligence algorithm developed by a French art collective called Obvious. It is the first AI-generated painting to be sold at a public auction
From this perspective, it can be said that generative works are not protected in the first place, so if they are infringed upon, who has the right to take legal action? From another perspective, excluding these works from legal protection weakens incentives to invest in the development of technical systems, which contradicts the encouragement of innovation that is mentioned in several laws and for which legislation has been created.
- Industrial and technical innovation:
The use of artificial intelligence with multiple algorithms has expanded to include the industrial sector and areas of technical and scientific innovation, as its role has begun to focus more on innovation than development within its field. One of the most prominent examples of this is the “Alphafold” system developed by Deepmind, which has achieved an unprecedented scientific breakthrough in the field of molecular biology and is considered important for future pharmaceutical innovations.
These developments pose a major legal problem in intellectual property laws, particularly with regard to patents, as the law requires that the inventor be a natural person, while the technical reality highlights its role in performing complete human tasks and sometimes surpassing human development.
One of the most prominent practical examples of this issue is the case of Thaler v. Thaler, in which inventor Stephen Thaler attempted to register an invention called DABUS, an artificial intelligence system. The Australian court rejected this request and refused to consider artificial intelligence as an inventor. It emphasized that the status of inventor must remain exclusive to humans, as this is an essential condition for acquiring patent rights, which is in line with international thinking.
3.Brand development and market analysis
The role of artificial intelligence is not limited to technical fields, but has extended to the development of the creative process related to branding and market analysis, to the point where it has become an integral part of the development process. Today, intelligent systems can design logos, suggest creative names for products, analyze markets by analyzing consumer behavior and preferences, which helps in developing business and other practices that make artificial intelligence a partner in brand development.
The problem with this point is that the trademark, in the legal sense, was used and created to distinguish one service from another. If it was issued and produced by a machine, to what extent does it fulfill the element of originality required by law?
The fact that authenticity is not associated with trademarks makes them vulnerable to questioning their eligibility for full legal protection, as there is no significant human intervention in their production.
- Use of artificial intelligence in legal practice
Recently, we have witnessed the integration of artificial intelligence into the judiciary and law firms through the use of smart systems designed specifically for this purpose, and training for its users, including lawyers and judges. Although the idea of integrating artificial intelligence into the legal sphere seems promising, it is not without risks for which there is no radical solution to date. One of the most prominent of these risks is artificial intelligence hallucinations, which may affect the final ruling of cases and the course of the legal process.
This is one of the most dangerous negative outcomes of artificial intelligence, as it relates to individual rights, and there are many judicial precedents in this regard.
Among them:
-In California, a former district attorney’s office used artificial intelligence to draft a file containing fictitious legal cases and precedents. (1). These errors and hallucinations are not isolated incidents but have been proven to be a recurring error in its use. There are shocking reports showing the extent of hallucinations in the use of artificial intelligence in the legal sphere, ranging from 17% to 82% in legal cases. Therefore, relying on artificial intelligence outputs without careful manual verification poses a clear threat to justice and has devastating consequences for the lives of defendants. It is important to have strict legal oversight of this rapid integration into the legal process, as the ultimate responsibility lies with human lawyers and their legal expertise, and they will be held accountable in the event of any errors, not the automated system, which still suffers from hallucinations.
Section II
Copyright
Copyright as a concept is relatively recent, as it did not exist in ancient times or in jurisprudence until the Roman era, which was accompanied by an intellectual revolution accompanied by legislative developments to protect the outputs of intellectual work, most notably the protection of copyright, which at the time aimed to limit the copying of works. Many books by scholars and jurists were copied and preserved for us in biographical works, without any knowledge at the time of what are now known as copyright and intellectual property rights. (2).
The Arabs established controls and rules during the process of codification, particularly in the codification of the Qur’an and Hadith, in order to ensure accuracy and authenticity of the texts, which is known today as copyright. (3)
Despite the multitude of sources that have addressed the historical development of copyright, it has sparked widespread debate, but it can be said that it began after the invention of printing in 1415, and developed after the French Revolution of 1791, which brought with it the development of many ideas. Subsequently, the Copyright Act was passed in England in
1810, and interest in intellectual property rights continued after the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which brought with it widespread technological development. The expansion of copyright legislation continued until it reached the United States of America, where it was initially limited to copyright within the country. It later developed and a law was passed that included the protection of copyright outside the country. The scope of protection was not limited to laws, as it later included many treaties and agreements, including the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary Works in 1886. When reviewing the historical development of copyright in simplified terms, it is necessary to address its definition and importance. We note that the Copyright Protection Law of 1992 did not provide a clear and explicit definition of copyright, but defined the author in Article 4 as “the person who publishes the work attributed to him, whether by mentioning his name on the work or not.”
Arab legislation on copyright is particularly noteworthy, especially Qatari Law No. (7) of 2002 on copyright and related rights, which defines the author as “the natural person who created the work” and copyright as: “a legal term for the rights of creators in their literary and artistic works, covering a wide range of works, including books, music, paintings, sculptures, films, computer programs, advertisements, geographical maps, and technical drawings” (1). The legislative basis for copyright came from the protection of intellectual property rights, which was the cornerstone of copyright regulation in Jordan and other legislation, which unanimously agreed that it was intended to protect literary and artistic works. The works covered by protection are written, oral, musical, pictorial, and cinematographic works, as well as computer programs and databases.
Law No. (7) of 2002 on the protection of copyright and related rights in Qatar.
Chapter Two: Legal Issues Related to Artificial Intelligence Outputs in Light of Jordanian Law
Artificial intelligence—especially generative AI—has become capable of producing texts, images, audio clips, and videos that appear to be complete human creations. With this shift, the issue is no longer the “capability of the technology” but rather its “legal adaptation”: Are these outputs considered protectable works? Who is the “author” of these works? Does Jordanian law allow models to be trained on protected works without a license? Who bears responsibility in the event of infringement, imitation, or reproduction? Because Jordanian copyright legislation was originally based on the traditional model of authorship linked to a natural person, the introduction of artificial intelligence into the creative sphere opens up an interpretative and regulatory gap that requires analysis of existing texts, examination of their limitations, and identification of their shortcomings.
First Discussion
Kiev Artificial intelligence outputs between the concept of authorship and the conditions of protection under Jordanian law Jordanian law is based on fundamental definitions that link the “author” to the person: it defines the “author” as the person who created the work, and defines the “work” as any creative literary, artistic, or scientific production, regardless of its form of expression, importance, or purpose. (1)
– The boundaries of protection between idea and expression and their impact on stylistic imitation
One of the most important points that highlights the fragility of the legal adaptation of artificial intelligence outputs is the distinction between ideas and expression. Jordanian law excludes ideas, methods, working methods, mathematical concepts, principles, discoveries, and abstract data from the scope of protection. (1)
This rule has a direct impact on issues such as:
“Imitation of an artist’s style” or “a writer’s writing style,” as it could be argued that “style” itself is not protected if it is at the level of idea/method, while protection remains based on “specific expression” (the texts, images, and passages themselves) if protected content is reproduced or modified.
Thus, disputes over derivative works often revolve not only around “imitation of the general atmosphere,” but also around the extent to which the output approximates an existing protected expression: Is it an independent work? Or is it a close reproduction/adaptation of a previous work?
This is where the importance of technical analysis (substantive similarity) alongside legal adaptation comes into play.
Conclusion
This study shows that the relationship between AI innovations and copyright is no longer a purely technical issue, but has become a complex legal problem that touches on the very essence of the philosophy of protection: encouraging creativity on the one hand, and preserving the rights of authors on the other. Recent applications of generative AI have shown that creative production is no longer always the result of direct human work, but may be the result of interaction between large-scale training data and generative algorithms, raising new questions about: (1) The criterion of originality and the limits of “human contribution” (2) The legitimacy of using protected works in training (3) Determining liability in cases of infringement, imitation of style, or reproduction of content. The comparison also highlighted that legal systems tend to follow one of two paths that are similar in their ultimate goal:
The first focuses on requiring human creativity as a prerequisite for protection, while refusing to consider artificial intelligence as an independent author. The second seeks to regulate training and access to Data through exceptions or licensing mechanisms that preserve the rights of copyright holders while preventing the hindrance of technical development. The study concludes that balance cannot be achieved by giving free rein to innovation without controls, nor by freezing development to protect rights, but rather through flexible regulation that distinguishes between legitimate and harmful uses, establishes clear responsibility, and provides enforceable tools.
Recommendations
First: Legislative recommendations 1-A clear definition of outputs related to artificial intelligence: This is to distinguish between outputs without significant human contribution that are “entirely generated” and outputs that include identifiable human creativity that are “assisted by artificial intelligence.”
2-Establishing the criterion of substantial human contribution as a condition for protection: Protecting copyright in works that incorporate artificial intelligence tools requires genuine human contribution, such as creative selection, substantial editing, artistic construction, and detailed direction leading to a specific artistic expression, with no protection granted to outputs produced without human intervention.
Second: Institutional and regulatory recommendations 3-Issuing a national guide: The competent authorities (such as the Ministry of Culture or the intellectual property authority) should issue a guide explaining how the rules apply in practical cases. Here are some examples:
- AI-generated images/text,
- Reproduction of an artist’s style,
- Training on protected content,
- Responsibility of the user, platform, and developer.
Strengthening digital enforcement capabilities and technical expertise: This is achieved by establishing specialized technical units to support judicial investigations in disputes of a technical nature (data sources, copy tracking, algorithmic analysis), as traditional enforcement alone is not sufficient in this type of case.
Ultimately, the study finds that the best approach to achieving balance is through disciplined legislative modernization that establishes clear standards for human creativity, regulates model training through transparent exceptions or licenses, and strengthens digital enforcement and institutional guidance, thereby ensuring a legal environment that both supports innovation and protects authors.
List of References
1) Hamouda, Samah Baqi Sayed, The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights, Published Research, Journal of Jurisprudence and Legal Research, 2025, Vol. 1, p. 9.
2)European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), Brussels: European Commission, 2021, p. 3.
3) Previous referenceThe acronym refers to the European Artificial Intelligence Act, a piece of legislation passed by the European Union in 2024 to regulate the use of artificial intelligence technologies and ensure their safety and transparency, as well as protect the rights of individuals when using them.
4.The portrait painting Edmond de Belamy is a work of art created in 2018 by an artificial intelligence algorithm developed by a French art collective called Obvious. It is the first AI generated painting to be sold at a public auction
5.Government technology website, California prosecutor says Al caused error in criminal case, Bernstein, Sharon, November 7, 2025, 8:14 a.m.
6.Al-Hassan, Muhammad Aqla, 2010, Authorship, Innovation, and Its Concept, Journal of Social Studies, Issue 30, p. 237.
7.Al-Halouji, Abdul Sattar, 2002, Arabic Books and Libraries: Past and Present, Dar Al Masriya Al-Lubnaniya, 2nd edition, Egypt, p. 75.
8.Despite the multitude of sources that have addressed the historical development of copyright,
9..Law No. (7) of 2002 on the protection of copyright and related rights in Qatar. 9-Mashri, Radia, 2013, Algerian Protection of Digital Works under Copyright Law, Journal of Communication in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Issue 34, pp. 151-135.
10- Janajra, Dima Emad Fahmi, Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, published master’s thesis, 2024, Jenin.
11-Jordanian Copyright and Related Rights Law No. 22 of 1992 and its amendments up to Law No. 23 of 2014, definition of “author” and “work.” Journal of Research and Humanities Studies”Entirely generated” without any identifiable human creative contribution, the attribution of “authorship” becomes directly problematic.
12.Previous reference, Article (9/a) (temporary or permanent reproduction, including electronic digital recording).
1) Hamouda, Samah Baqi Sayed, The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights, Published Research, Journal of Jurisprudence and Legal Research, 2025, Vol. 1, p. 9.
2)European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), Brussels: European Commission, 2021, p. 3.
3) Previous referenceThe acronym refers to the European Artificial Intelligence Act, a piece of legislation passed by the European Union in 2024 to regulate the use of artificial intelligence technologies and ensure their safety and transparency, as well as protect the rights of individuals when using them.
1-Government technology website, California prosecutor says Al caused error in criminal case, Bernstein, Sharon, November 7, 2025, 8:14 a.m.
2-. Al-Hassan, Muhammad Aqla, 2010, Authorship, Innovation, and Its Concept, Journal of Social Studies, Issue 30, p. 237.
3.Al-Halouji, Abdul Sattar, 2002, Arabic Books and Libraries: Past and Present, Dar Al-Masriya Al-Lubnaniya, 2nd edition, Egypt, p. 75.
1) Janajra, Dima Emad Fahmi, Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, published master’s thesis, 2024, Jenin.
2.Previous reference, Article (9/a) (temporary or permanent reproduction, including electronic digital recording)
