The Age of AI: Effects on Intellectual Property Law

Introduction:

In the modern era of advanced technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved from a fascinating development into a global legal issue, raising concerns about preserving core human values, including innovation and creativity. AI refers to computer systems designed to simulate human intelligence to performs tasks such as making decisions, pattern recognition and speech processing[1]. However, its nature as a broad concept encompassing AI training, generative AI, and machine learning has led to extensive involvement in authentic authorship and the production of original works, raising serious concerns for Intellectual Property (IP), particularly regarding copyright, trademarks, and patents. This article examines AI’s impact on IP frameworks and explores possible solutions to address these challenges.

Understanding Intellectual Property Law:

Intellectual Property law is a legal field that protects innovative creations of the human mind by granting creators and inventors enforceable rights against any unauthorized use[2]. Such rights guarantee the legal safety of one’s ideas and prevent unfair exploitation while encouraging innovation and creativity by recognizing ownership of original ideas. The areas covered by IP law include copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. The law within these areas of law collectively protects such creative works, brand identity, new inventions and other intellectual creations.

Under copyright law, original works of authorship are protected to prevent others from copying or displaying the work without the owner’s permission. This guarantees the owner of the right to adapt, perform or share their work, provided that the work is original and is comes within an eligible category. These include art, music, and literature, to name a few[3], while information and ideas are not protected.

Trademark law protects brand identity through distinctive signs such as logos, phrases, and designs used to identify a particular service or product, aiming to prevent other competitors from using similar entities that can easily mislead consumers[4]. Perhaps the most well-known examples range from McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it” slogan and its golden Arches logo to trademark elements such as its ‘Mc’ prefix[5]. Other examples include the popular Nike Swoosh logo and distinctive colors including Cadbury’s purple packaging[6].

Moving onto patent law, it protects inventions by granting inventors exclusive rights including the using, distribution and importing their invention for a limited time[7]. This guarantees that innovators are rewarded for developing new technologies while being protected from any unauthorised exploitation.

A common feature across these areas is their focus on protecting human creativity and innovation by ensuring that inventors are recognised and have legal control over their work. However, the rise of AI challenges the notion of authors having exclusive rights to their work, along with traditional assumptions about ownership, something which will be explored later in this article.

Legal Frameworks of Intellectual Property Law

Moreover, there are certain laws governing each area of IP law discussed above, both at an international and domestic level with the purpose of safeguarding the IP rights of creators and inventors.

The international recognition of IP law traces back to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, where it was acknowledged as a matter of human rights[8]. Article 27(2) grants the right to protect moral and material interests from any literary, artistic or scientific production[9]. Similarly, Article 15(1)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) upholds the protection of these material interests[10]. Such provisions establish that member states are expected to acknowledged and uphold the rights of creators at an international level.

Other than these human rights foundations, IP centric international frameworks are provided through organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO). WIPO is identified as an international centre for IP policy, services, and collaboration[11]. It administers the Paris Convention, protecting both trademarks and patents, including ‘object patents, trademarks, utility models, trade names’ under Article 1(2)[12]. The Berne Convention governs copyright protection which covers ‘literary, scientific and artistic works’ as provided under Article 2(1)[13].

Unlike WIPO, which develops global IP policies and treaties, WTO imposes minimum standards regarding IP to ensure member states implement these obligations through domestic law. Such standards are enforced through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement[14]. For instance, TRIPS requires member states to protect authors’ rights to reproduce and distribute works, enforce trademarks to prevent consumer confusion, and to provide legal remedies for infringement[15].

Under national law, intellectual property is protected in Pakistan under the Copyright Ordinance 1962, Patents Ordinance 2000, and Trademarks Ordinance 2001, which implement international standards from WIPO treaties and the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement. However, Pakistan’s lack of implementation and enforcement of these legal frameworks seen by prevalent piracy, counterfeit goods and weak patent protection, highlights the practical difficulties of protecting IP. Such challenges are amplified in the age of AI, where creative and inventive works are generated by automated tools, further complicating authorship, ownership, and modifying creative works[16].

Challenges of AI for Intellectual Property Law

In the modern world of advanced technologies, AI has no doubt influenced industries, ranging from media and entertainment to education and manufacturing. However, this rapid development has exposed a major issue, being the lack of IP legislative frameworks to prevent AI from infringing any IP right and to distinguish content produced by humans from content generated by AI.  Thus, various fields of IP law are increasingly affected by the ongoing evolution of AI technology.

Shedding light on the issues occurring in relation to copyright law, AI training poses a significant challenge to a legal framework which protects original works resulting from human creativity[17]. The issue arises when AI systems are trained from different databases containing copyrighted works without proper authorization and license, blurring the line between human authorship and derivative creation by AI models. This raises questions about whether this constitutes infringement. In Kadrey v Meta Platforms it was examined whether copying authors’ books to train an AI model would qualify as fair use and the court decided that it could. Yet, this decision did not determine the legality of AI training on copyrighted works, only raising more uncertainty within copyright law[18].

The matter of ownership and authorship often becomes complex. Traditionally, IP protection is attributed to human inventors, yet the frequent use of AI raises an issue of whether an AI model can be regarded as an author or inventor, giving rise to disputes over legal credit for the work or invention[19]. This issue is particularly significant in relation to patent law, given its requirement of a human inventor for patent protection. The DABUS case highlighted whether IP can be owned by AI or if patent law requires reform[20]. To this, many jurisdictions had different rulings, highlighting the uncertainty of the situation despite the need for clarity in IP law.

Regarding trademark law, the generating of logos, images, brand names by AI tools that resemble existing trademarks may give rise to legal challenges for unauthorized trademark use, even where there is no intent to infringe[21].

Such issues become further intensified in countries with weaker IP enforcement and limited supervision, such as Pakistan where certain AI related legal matters are yet to be determined, keeping IP protection vulnerable.

Recommendations

The challenges posed by AI and the effect on IP law can be approached in different ways, including the establishment of data security policies to clarify which data is not permissible to use for AI tools. Conducting a cybersecurity risk assessment to prevent AI from using valuable data is also suggested to protect one’s IP rights[22]. These measures would be important in preventing AI from replicating or manipulating protected works.

In relation to copyright duration, a fixed term should be established for content generated by AI, referring to the absence of a human owners’ lifespan. International coordination to standardise copyright laws and to legal issues by AI generated content is also essential[23]. Other measures include the use of automated tools to identify potential copyright infringements, as well as educating legal practitioners about AI’s capabilities and the legal issues it presents.

Moreover, in countries like Pakistan where IP protection remains weak, legal reforms should be made to align domestic law with international frameworks, along with strengthening its enforcement mechanisms. The question of whether AI can be recognised as an inventor is yet to be determined by Pakistan and other jurisdictions with no settlement on this issue. In order to address these challenges in the long run, it is essential to acknowledge emerging technologies and forming legal frameworks accordingly.

Conclusion

The use of AI is set to become increasingly common in the years ahead, presenting both benefits but posing significant challenges for the creative and legal industries, particularly IP law. This convergence will likely reshape traditional legal standards, redefining copyright laws, clarifying ownership, and establishing mechanisms to identify AI generated content. Despite the opportunities AI may bring such as facilitating licensing and modifying content creation, ensuring that technological advancements do not undermine IP protection will be crucial, alongside adopting progressive approaches to ensure a just digital future.

Bibliography

1. ‘3 Trademark Strategies Behind McDonald’s Worldwide Success – Piñol Law’ <https://www.pinollaw.com/articles/3-trademark-strategies-behind-mcdonalds-worldwide-success> accessed 28 January 2026
2. ‘A Comprehensive Guide to Intellectual Property Law’ <https://www.korumlegal.com/blog/a-comprehensive-guide-to-intellectual-property-law> accessed 28 January 2026
3. Adams A&, ‘How Intellectual Property Rights Are Human Rights’ (Adams & Adams, 7 July 2018) <https://www.adams.africa/iplive-welcome-to-our-blog-on-ip-commercialisation/how-intellectual-property-rights-are-human-rights/> accessed 29 January 2026
4. admin, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Its Negative Impact on IP’ (7 March 2025) <https://www.iiprd.com/artificial-intelligence-and-its-negative-impact-on-intellectual-property-a-basic-guide/> accessed 30 January 2026
5. ‘AI – Inventor, or Imposter? The DABUS Case Explained – Scintilla’ <https://www.scintilla-ip.com/ai-inventor-or-imposter-the-darmus-case-explained/> accessed 30 January 2026
6. ‘AI-Generated Content and IP Rights: Challenges and Policy Considerations – Diplo’ (7 February 2025) <https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ai-generated-content-and-ip-rights-challenges-and-policy-considerations/> accessed 30 January 2026
7. Ali U, ‘Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights: Impacts, Challenges, and Future Directions’ (2024) 3 UCP Journal of Law & Legal Education 85
8. ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Definition, Examples, Types, Applications, Companies, & Facts | Britannica’ (27 January 2026) <https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence> accessed 27 January 2026
9. Bukhari SWR, Hassan SU and Aleem Y, ‘Impact Of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law: Challenges and Prospects’ (2023) 5 Journal of Law & Social Studies 647
10. Epstein RA, ‘The Basic Structure of Intellectual Property Law’ in Rochelle Dreyfuss and Justine Pila (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press 2018) <https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198758457.013.7> accessed 28 January 2026
11. ——, ‘The Basic Structure of Intellectual Property Law’ <https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27971/chapter/211596167> accessed 29 January 2026
12. Forage, ‘What Is Intellectual Property Law?’ (Forage, 17 April 2024) <https://www.theforage.com/blog/careers/intellectual-property-law> accessed 28 January 2026
13. ‘From Biscuits to Drips, Original Makers Battle Counterfeit across Sindh’ <https://tribune.com.pk/story/443104/from-biscuits-to-drips-original-makers-battle-counterfeit-across-sindh> accessed 29 January 2026
14. ‘Intellectual Property Law’ <https://www.law.georgetown.edu/your-life-career/career-exploration-professional-development/for-jd-students/explore-legal-careers/practice-areas/intellectual-property-law/> accessed 28 January 2026
15. ‘Intellectual Property Law in the Age of Emerging Technologies’ <https://www.ibanet.org/intellectual-property-law-emerging-technology> accessed 29 January 2026
16. ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (OHCHR) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights> accessed 29 January 2026
17. Nations U, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> accessed 29 January 2026
18. ‘Patents’ <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patents> accessed 29 January 2026
19. Saber A and others, ‘6 AI Cases And What They Mean For Copyright Law’
20. ‘Trademark Examples’ <https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-examples> accessed 28 January 2026
21. WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698> accessed 29 January 2026
22. ——, ‘WIPO Lex’ <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514> accessed 29 January 2026
23. ‘WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization’ <https://www.wipo.int/> accessed 29 January 2026
24. Zhurer Y, ‘7 Proven Ways to Prevent Intellectual Property Theft’ (Syteca, 10 December 2025) <https://www.syteca.com/en/blog/best-practices-to-prevent-intellectual-property-theft> accessed 30 January 2026

[1] ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Definition, Examples, Types, Applications, Companies, & Facts | Britannica’ (27 January 2026) <https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence> accessed 27 January 2026.

[2] Forage, ‘What Is Intellectual Property Law?’ (Forage, 17 April 2024) <https://www.theforage.com/blog/careers/intellectual-property-law> accessed 28 January 2026.

[3] ‘A Comprehensive Guide to Intellectual Property Law’ <https://www.korumlegal.com/blog/a-comprehensive-guide-to-intellectual-property-law> accessed 28 January 2026.

[4] ‘Intellectual Property Law’ <https://www.law.georgetown.edu/your-life-career/career-exploration-professional-development/for-jd-students/explore-legal-careers/practice-areas/intellectual-property-law/> accessed 28 January 2026.

[5] ‘3 Trademark Strategies Behind McDonald’s Worldwide Success – Piñol Law’ <https://www.pinollaw.com/articles/3-trademark-strategies-behind-mcdonalds-worldwide-success> accessed 28 January 2026.

[6] ‘Trademark Examples’ <https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-examples> accessed 28 January 2026.

[7] ‘Patents’ <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patents> accessed 29 January 2026.

[8] Adams & Adams, ‘How Intellectual Property Rights Are Human Rights’ (Adams & Adams, 7 July 2018) <https://www.adams.africa/iplive-welcome-to-our-blog-on-ip-commercialisation/how-intellectual-property-rights-are-human-rights/> accessed 29 January 2026.

[9] ‘A/RES/217(III): Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ <https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_217(III).pdf> accessed 29 January 2026.

[10] ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (OHCHR) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights> accessed 29 January 2026.

[11] ‘WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization’ <https://www.wipo.int/> accessed 29 January 2026.

[12] WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514> accessed 29 January 2026.

[13] WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698> accessed 29 January 2026.

[14] ‘27-Trips.Wpf’ <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_E/legal_E/27-trips.pdf> accessed 29 January 2026.

[15] ibid.

[16] ‘Intellectual Property Law in the Age of Emerging Technologies’ <https://www.ibanet.org/intellectual-property-law-emerging-technology> accessed 29 January 2026.

[17] Syed Wajdan Rafay Bukhari, Saif Ullah Hassan and Yasir Aleem, ‘Impact Of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law: Challenges and Prospects’ (2023) 5 Journal of Law & Social Studies 647.

[18] Anna Saber and others, ‘6 AI Cases And What They Mean For Copyright Law’.

[19] Umaima Ali, ‘Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights: Impacts, Challenges, and Future Directions’ (2024) 3 UCP Journal of Law & Legal Education 85.

[20] ‘AI – Inventor, or Imposter? The DABUS Case Explained – Scintilla’ <https://www.scintilla-ip.com/ai-inventor-or-imposter-the-darmus-case-explained/> accessed 30 January 2026.

[21] admin, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Its Negative Impact on IP’ (7 March 2025) <https://www.iiprd.com/artificial-intelligence-and-its-negative-impact-on-intellectual-property-a-basic-guide/> accessed 30 January 2026.

[22] Yevhen Zhurer, ‘7 Proven Ways to Prevent Intellectual Property Theft’ (Syteca, 10 December 2025) <https://www.syteca.com/en/blog/best-practices-to-prevent-intellectual-property-theft> accessed 30 January 2026.

[23] ‘AI-Generated Content and IP Rights: Challenges and Policy Considerations – Diplo’ (7 February 2025) <https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ai-generated-content-and-ip-rights-challenges-and-policy-considerations/> accessed 30 January 2026.