Copyright Issues In UkrAInian Algorithmic Sound Design For National Media
đź“Ś Ukrainian Copyright Law & Algorithmic Works (Legal Framework)
1) Basic Rule: Only human‑created works are eligible for traditional copyright
Under the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights”, copyright exists only for works created by a natural person through personal creative effort. Iranian or fully AI‑generated works do not qualify for classical copyright because there is no human authorship.
This means if a generative algorithm or AI solely creates a piece of music or sound design, Ukrainian law does not grant copyright to the AI or its output on classical grounds. The human author may get copyright only for the parts they actively and creatively contributed.
2) Sui Generis Rights for AI/Algorithmic Output
Ukraine has introduced a sui generis (unique) regime in its copyright law (effective January 2023) that provides special legal protection for objects generated without direct human involvement (like fully AI‑produced works).
Key points about this regime:
It does not create normal copyright rights (recognition of human authorship, moral rights, etc.).
It grants certain economic rights (like the ability to authorise use) to the person who owns the software or initiated its use.
Protection lasts 25 years from the year after creation.
In algorithmic sound design, if a piece of sound/music is entirely machine‑generated without human creative contribution, it might be protected only under this sui generis regime.
đź“š Detailed Case Explanations (5+ Cases)
Case 1 — Andrii Pryimachenko v. HBO (Chernobyl Series) — International Copyright Suit
Facts:
Ukrainian creative director Andrii Pryimachenko created a video based on a real audio recording of telephone communications from the Chornobyl disaster and published it online. HBO’s Chernobyl miniseries used the same visual without permission.
Legal Issue:
Unauthorized use of copyrighted work in a major media production.
Court Process & Outcome:
Pryimachenko pursued legal action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
After over six years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement that restored his rights and compensated him, establishing a precedent of protecting Ukrainian creators’ copyright internationally.
Relevance:
Shows how media companies must respect copyright even if the work originates online or internationally. In algorithmic sound design, using someone’s original sound without permission could trigger similar enforcement.
Case 2 — Karaoke on the Maidan Dispute (2002–2009)
Facts:
A Ukrainian television show Karaoke on the Maidan was allegedly broadcast by another channel without proper licensing of the format and associated works.
Legal Issue:
Rights to broadcast a TV format and its creative elements (music, performances, theme, etc.).
Outcome:
Initially, the plaintiff lost at first instance.
On appeal, Ukrainian courts recognized copyright infringement and upheld the plaintiff’s rights, requiring proper licensing.
Relevance:
This case illustrates that broadcast formats and associated creative works are protected. An algorithmic soundtrack used without agreement on a media show would be treated similarly.
Case 3 — Inspector Freimut v. Revizor TV Format
(Older Ukrainian television infringement case)
Facts:
A TV show “Inspector Freimut” allegedly used the audiovisual structure, concepts, and parts of the show “Revizor” without authorisation.
Legal Issue:
Derivative works and copyright protection of television formats and scenarios.
Outcome:
Ukrainian courts found that the unauthorized use of substantial elements violated copyright.
The show was prohibited from further broadcasting in its infringing form and statutory damages were awarded.
Relevance:
Even complex program formats are protected; the same principle would apply if AI/algorithmic music were copied into a TV show without permission.
Case 4 — Software Authorship Dispute (Lightconverse vs. L8)
Facts:
A claimant argued they were co‑author of two computer programs (software) and sought recognition and an order to prevent their unauthorized use.
Legal Issue:
Establishing co‑authorship and ownership in complex technological works.
Outcome:
Claims were dismissed because the plaintiff could not reliably establish co‑authorship with proper expert proof.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for clear evidence when claiming authorship of technical works.
Relevance:
In algorithmic sound design, authorship disputes may arise (who owns the rights — the person or the programmer). Ukrainian courts require strong evidence of personal creative input.
Case 5 — Multiple Internet Copyright Infringement Rulings
Facts:
Various internet infringement cases involve websites hosting copyrighted literature, movies, music without permission. Courts have ruled for enforcement, including takedown, damages, and injunctions.
Legal Issues:
Unauthorised distribution.
Digital reproduction.
Public performance rights.
Outcome:
Courts have regularly upheld rightsholders by ordering removal and damages.
Relevance:
In media contexts, broadcasting generative sound/music without rights would be considered infringement.
đź“Ś Other Noteworthy Principles
âś” Sui Generis Protection for AI/Algorithmic Works
Ukraine’s sui generis regime was developed to fill the gap where traditional copyright does not apply to fully machine‑generated works. Such works receive limited legal protection for 25 years, offering media companies and creators a clearer framework.
🧠Algorithmic Sound Design and Copyright — Key Legal Rules
| Situation | Traditional Copyright? | Sui Generis? | Who Owns Rights? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sound created by a human composer using algorithmic tools | Yes | No | The human composer |
| Sound entirely generated by AI/algorithm (no human creativity) | No | Yes | The person who owns or controls the AI tool/process |
| Remix of public domain + AI output | Possibly | Depends | Human author if creative elements exist |
| Media broadcast including algorithmic music without permission | Infringement | Infringement | Remedial claims (damages?) |
🧩 Summary — Practical Takeaways
Human creativity still matters: Copyright in Ukraine attaches to human‑authored works — algorithmic or AI output without human creativity does not generate traditional copyright.
New sui generis rights protect some algorithmic creations: Ukraine recognizes limited legal rights for non‑original AI works to support commercial uses.
Media must secure rights before use: Ukrainian and international case law shows that media producers must obtain rights for copyrighted material, especially when broadcasting audio/visual works.
Dispute outcomes hinge on evidence of authorship: Courts will require expert and technical evidence to define who is the author and what rights they hold.
Algorithmic content integration is untested but covered: While there are few direct Ukrainian cases about algorithmic sound design specifically, these principles apply — unauthorized broadcast or copying would be actionable.
RELATED Blog
comments