The Civil-Law Regime of Neural Network-Generated Outputs: Challenges of Definition and Interpretation

The paper examines the criteria of originality and creative character of outputs generated by neural networks as necessary and sufficient conditions for their recognition as copyrightable objects. The study substantiates the conclusion that a prompt possesses legal significance as a special form of expression of the author’s intent and as evidence of the author’s creative contribution. The methods of recording and preserving prompts are analyzed in detail. By way of illustration, the paper reviews selected judicial decisions from Russia, China, the United States, and Italy where the possibility of copyright protection for AI-generated outputs was at issue. Two models of contractual regulation governing the use of generative platforms are identified: the «neural network as tool» model, under which exclusive rights initially vest in and subsequently belong to the user; and the «neural network as service» model, which предусматривает the transfer of proprietary rights to the holder of exclusive rights in the software complex (the generative platform), followed by the grant to the user of a limited license. The author concludes that, where a generative model is installed locally, the relationship should be characterized as a license agreement, whereas in the case of a cloud-based architecture it should be classified as a mixed contract incorporating elements of both a license agreement and a contract for compensated services.

1. Belousova N., Ruzavina N., Baymurzina R., Trunov A. Avtorskie prava na kontent neyrosetey: voprosy, kotorye trebuyut resheniy // URL: https://ezybrand.ru/blog/avtorskie-prava-na-kontent-nejrosetej/ (data obrashcheniya: 20.08.2025).

2. Vasilevskaya L. Yu. Dogovor i soglashenie v grazhdanskom prave: kriterii razgranicheniya ponyatiy // Yurist. — 2012. — № 22. — S. 9–13.

3. Vasilevskaya L. Yu., Poduzova E. B., Tasalov F. A. Tsifrovizatsiya grazhdanskogo oborota: problemy i tendentsii razvitiya (tsivilisticheskoe issledovanie): monografiya: v 5 t. T. 1. — M.: Prospekt, 2021. — 288 s.

4. Efimenko E. Neyroseti protiv avtorskogo prava: kto kogo // URL: https://pravo.ru/story/245161/ (data obrashcheniya: 20.08.2025).

5. Zuykov S. A. O probleme obucheniya generativnykh neyrosetey na obektakh, okhranyaemykh avtorskim pravom // Zhurnal Suda po intellektualnym pravam. — 2023. — 18 sentyabrya. — URL: https://ipcmagazine.ru/articles/1729395/ (data obrashcheniya: 20.08.2025).

6. Starovoytova A. S. «Iskusstvennyy intellekt»: problemy yuridicheskoy kvalifikatsii // Intellektualnaya sobstvennost kak bazovoe uslovie obespecheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta Rossiyskoy Federatsii: sbornik dokladov XXVI Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii Rospatenta (Moskva, 29 sentyabrya 2022 g.) / vyp. red. E. G. Tsareva. — M.: Federalnyy institut promyshlennoy sobstvennosti, 2022. — S. 101–103.