Keyword: «copyright»

The article is devoted to the problems of preventing and combating crimes against intellec-tual property. The author analyzes the experience of foreign countries in this area. For this purpose, an analysis of the legislation and law enforcement practice of Western countries, as well as countries of the Asia-Pacific region, was carried out. Having summarized the experience of these countries, the author concludes that many legislative, organizational and managerial decisions adopted in foreign countries can be taken into account in the legislation and law enforcement practice of the Russian Federation. This concerns, firstly, taking into account modern digitalization processes, for example, the criminalization of new types of criminal activities in efforts to combat “intellectual piracy.” Secondly, in combining the rules on crimes against intellectual property in one structural element of the criminal law. Thirdly, the exclusion from the elements of these crimes of such a constructive element as consequences. Fourthly, the severity of punishment is comparable to the severity of punishment for property crimes. Fifthly, a strategic approach to combating this type of crime, which involves the adoption of federal strategic planning documents, the creation of special interdepartmental coordinating bodies, regular reporting, public information, awareness-raising work, targeted funding, etc.

The article examines the qualification of crimes against intellectual property in the context of AI-generated content. It analyzes constitutional, civil, criminal, and procedural foundations for protecting intellectual results. The application of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to plagiarism, unlawful use of protected works, and circulation of counterfeit copies involving artificial intelligence is considered. Special attention is paid to proving human creative contribution, distinguishing instrumental and autonomous AI, and the need for legal definitions of synthetic content. The author concludes that targeted legislative modernization is required without changing the basic structure of criminal law.

The problem of determining the material carrier of an intellectual property object is not a terminological issue, but rather a systemic one. It marks the boundary between the regime of property rights and the regime of intellectual rights, between the circulation of a thing and the circulation of an exclusive right, and between the permissible use of an instance and the violation of the right to an intellectual property result. This article explores the issues of determining the material carrier of an intellectual property object.