Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Prospects for Lebanon

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is redefining creative and inventive processes, raising unprecedented challenges for intellectual property (IP) systems worldwide. From AI-generated artworks to algorithm-driven inventions, traditional copyright and patent frameworks face questions over authorship, originality, and ownership. Lebanon, as a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a party to key IP treaties, maintains a legal framework largely built for human creators. This article examines the compatibility of Lebanese IP laws—particularly the 1999 Copyright Law and patent legislation—with the realities of AI-generated works. Through comparative analysis with international approaches, it highlights legislative gaps, enforcement challenges, and potential reforms. The study argues that adapting Lebanon’s IP regime is crucial to balancing innovation incentives with the public interest in the AI era.

I. Introduction

Artificial Intelligence has shifted from being a futuristic concept to a pervasive reality, influencing industries as diverse as healthcare, finance, media, and the arts. In the creative sector, AI systems can compose music, draft legal documents, design architectural plans, and even invent new chemical compounds. Such capabilities raise a pressing legal question: Who owns the intellectual property when the creator is not human?

Lebanon’s legal framework for intellectual property is primarily shaped by Law No. 75 of 1999 on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property, its patent legislation, and the country’s obligations under the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and other WIPO-administered treaties. While these laws robustly protect human authors and inventors, they are silent on works autonomously generated by machines.

Globally, jurisdictions are adopting varied approaches. The United Kingdom allows copyright in computer-generated works with the ‘author’ defined as the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation. The United States Copyright Office, however, has rejected claims for works without human authorship, as seen in the 2022 Zarya of the Dawn decision. Meanwhile, WIPO has initiated consultations on AI and IP policy, recognizing the urgent need for coherent international guidelines.

For Lebanon, the issue is not merely theoretical. As the country seeks to integrate into the global digital economy and encourage tech entrepreneurship, a clear legal position on AI and IP will be essential. Without it, creators, investors, and innovators may face uncertainty, limiting the country’s ability to attract AI-driven ventures. This article explores the current state of Lebanese IP law in light of AI developments, evaluates international practices, and proposes legislative reforms to ensure Lebanon’s IP regime remains relevant and effective in the 21st century.

II. Legal Framework

Lebanese Domestic Law

1. Copyright Law (Law No. 75/1999)
Lebanon’s Copyright Law protects ‘literary and artistic works’ that are ‘original in nature’ and expressed in a tangible medium. The law grants rights to the author, defined as the natural or legal person who creates the work. It does not specify whether an AI can qualify as an ‘author.’

2. Patent Law
The Industrial Property Law requires an inventor to be a natural person. Patentable subject matter must be novel, involve an inventive step, and be industrially applicable. An AI’s inventive process, without human involvement, would likely fall outside this framework.

3. Enforcement Mechanisms
Enforcement relies on civil remedies, criminal sanctions, and customs measures, but AI-generated works raise new evidentiary challenges.

B. International Obligations
Lebanon is a member of WIPO and party to the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and TRIPS. These treaties set minimum protection levels but presume human authorship.

C. Comparative International Approaches
– United Kingdom: Attributes authorship in computer-generated works to the person arranging creation.
– United States: Denies copyright to works without human authorship (Zarya of the Dawn, 2022).
– European Union: Still evaluating AI reforms.

III. Judicial Interpretation

Lebanon has no reported cases directly addressing AI authorship or inventorship. Courts have traditionally focused on human creative intent when determining authorship. This suggests that autonomous AI creations would not currently qualify for protection unless linked to human input.

Internationally:

– United States: Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) confirmed that works generated solely by AI without human involvement cannot be registered.
– United Kingdom: Interprets CDPA Section 9(3) to allow attribution to human arrangers.
– Australia: Briefly recognized AI as an inventor in Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (2021), but overturned on appeal.

IV. Critical Analysis

Lebanon faces three challenges:

1. Definition of Authorship and Inventorship – Current definitions exclude AI works, creating uncertainty.
2. Enforcement Difficulties – Proving infringement in AI-generated works requires new evidentiary standards.
3. Compatibility with International Obligations – Reforms must align with Berne Convention requirements.

The UK’s ‘human arranger’ approach could be adapted for Lebanon, ensuring accountability without excluding AI-generated innovation.

V. Recent Developments

WIPO’s public consultation on AI and IP has framed global policy debates. The EU is considering reforms, and the UAE is exploring AI-related IP adjustments. Lebanon has not yet introduced legislative changes but shows openness to aligning with best practices to encourage AI innovation.

VI. Suggestions / Way Forward

1. Amend IP laws to define authorship in AI works as the person arranging creation.
2. Introduce sui generis rights for AI-generated works with shorter protection terms.
3.  Establish evidentiary rules for AI-related IP disputes.
4. Train judges, lawyers, and creators on AI-IP issues.
5. Cooperate regionally to harmonize AI-IP frameworks.

VII. Conclusion

AI challenges the human-centric foundations of IP law. Lebanon must adapt its laws to remain competitive in the digital economy. Drawing from comparative models, especially the UK’s approach, Lebanon can strike a balance between innovation and legal certainty. Proactive reform will ensure the Lebanese IP system remains relevant, effective, and fair in the AI era.