COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ACTS OF THE EU COUNTRIES ON THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Abstract

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally challenged traditional intellectual property (IP) frameworks, particularly in the European Union (EU), where regulatory efforts are aimed at balancing innovation with legal protections. AI’s ability to autonomously create, modify, and use IP raises complex questions about authorship, inventorship, ownership, and enforcement, which existing laws were not designed to handle. As EU countries attempt to adapt their legal systems to address these challenges, a comparative analysis of their regulatory acts is essential to understand how different member states are responding to the intersection of AI and IP protection. The aim of this article is to provide a comparative analysis of the regulatory frameworks governing IP protection in the context of AI across selected EU countries. By examining national legislation and harmonization efforts, the study seeks to identify common challenges, highlight divergent approaches, and offer insights into the evolving legal landscape of IP protection in the age of AI. The article employs a qualitative, comparative research methodology. It focuses on six EU countries—Germany, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Greece, and Romania—analyzing their IP laws concerning AI-related issues. The study reviews national regulations, EU directives, and case law to evaluate how each country addresses AI-generated IP in terms of ownership, authorship, patentability, trademark issues, and enforcement mechanisms. A thematic coding approach is used to identify key trends and divergences between member states. The analysis reveals that all EU countries maintain the requirement for human authorship and inventorship, which limits the legal recognition of fully autonomous AI-generated content. While countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands have initiated discussions on potential legal reforms, others, such as Poland, Greece, and Romania, rely more heavily on existing frameworks and await further EU guidance. Additionally, enforcement mechanisms vary significantly, with more technologically advanced countries adopting AI-driven tools to monitor and enforce IP rights. As AI continues to evolve and play a larger role in creative and technical industries, the legal frameworks governing IP in the EU must adapt accordingly. Future regulatory efforts should focus on creating new categories for AI-generated works, investing in AI-powered enforcement tools, and ensuring greater harmonization across member states. By addressing these challenges proactively, the EU can strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and maintaining robust IP protections, positioning itself as a global leader in both technology and intellectual property rights.