Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law: A Comparison Between Türkiye and the EU

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly influenced various aspects of modern life, including Intellectual Property (IP) Law. The rapid development of AI-driven innovations has raised critical legal questions concerning authorship, ownership, and protection of AI-generated content. Countries worldwide are adapting their legal frameworks to address these emerging challenges. This blog post explores the impact of AI on IP law in Türkiye and the European Union (EU), highlighting key similarities, differences, and ongoing legislative developments.

The EU Approach to AI and Intellectual Property

The European Union has been proactive in addressing AI's impact on Intellectual Property Law through legislative initiatives and policy frameworks. The European Commission has taken steps to ensure that AI-generated content aligns with existing IP law regulations while considering new adaptations to accommodate AI-driven innovation.

Key Aspects of the EU Approach:

The EU Copyright Directive primarily protects works created by human authors. Currently, AI-generated works lack explicit recognition as protectable under EU copyright law. However, discussions are ongoing to determine whether AI-assisted creations should be granted legal protection.

Patentability of AI Innovations: AI-related inventions can be patented if they meet novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability requirements. However, the European Patent Office (EPO) currently mandates that human inventors be named in patent applications, preventing AI from being recognized as an inventor.

Data Protection and IP Rights: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a crucial role in governing AI-generated data and its intersection with IP rights. The EU is working on balancing AI innovation with data privacy regulations.

The AI Act: The EU’s AI Act, which aims to regulate AI applications, has implications for IP law. It seeks to ensure AI systems are used ethically while addressing liability and ownership concerns related to AI-generated content.

The Türkiye Perspective on AI and Intellectual Property

Türkiye, as a candidate country for EU membership, aligns many of its IP laws with EU directives. However, AI-related IP regulations remain in their infancy, and Turkish courts and lawmakers are still grappling with AI’s implications on IP protection.

Key Aspects of Türkiye’s Approach:

Copyright and AI-Generated Works: Turkish copyright law, like its EU counterpart, requires a human author for copyright protection. AI-generated works are not explicitly recognized, leaving creators and businesses uncertain about ownership rights.

Patent Protection for AI Innovations: The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office follows similar principles to the EPO. While AI-assisted inventions can be patented, AI itself cannot be designated as an inventor.

Data Protection and AI: The Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK), modeled after the GDPR, governs AI-related data privacy issues. However, unlike the EU, Türkiye lacks a dedicated AI regulation to address its impact on IP rights.

Legislative Developments: Türkiye has begun evaluating AI’s role in IP law, with legal scholars and policymakers discussing potential amendments. However, concrete legislative changes have yet to be implemented.

Comparative Analysis: Key Differences and Similarities

Legal Recognition of AI-Generated Works: Both the EU and Türkiye currently do not recognize AI-generated works for copyright protection, adhering to the human authorship requirement.

Patent Regulations: Both jurisdictions allow patents for AI-assisted innovations but do not permit AI to be listed as an inventor.

Data Protection Laws: The EU's GDPR and Türkiye's KVKK share similarities, but the EU has more robust mechanisms in place for AI-related data governance.

AI-Specific Legislation: The EU is ahead with its AI Act, while Türkiye is still in the discussion phase regarding AI regulations and their intersection with IP law.

Conclusion

As AI continues to reshape industries, its impact on intellectual property law remains a key legal challenge. The EU has taken significant steps to adapt its legal framework to AI developments, while Türkiye is gradually working towards similar updates. Businesses, legal professionals, and policymakers in both jurisdictions must stay informed about these evolving legal landscapes to navigate AI-driven IP issues effectively.

Looking ahead, cooperation between Türkiye and the EU in AI and IP regulation could facilitate harmonized policies that foster innovation while ensuring legal clarity. Until then, AI’s legal status in IP law remains an open question that will require continuous legislative evolution.