Philipp Homar

Can copyright‑protected works be used to develop and run generative artificial intelligence applications such as ChatGPT or Midjourney? This question lies at the heart of current research by Philipp Homar, professor of Intellectual Property Law and head of the Information Law and Intellectual Property Law Group at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.

Homar’s doctrinal legal research, which interprets and systematizes existing copyright rules, focuses on a fundamental tension at the core of the debate surrounding AI:

• On the one hand, it is important to strengthen innovation in artificial intelligence

• On the other hand, the rights of human authors must be protected

“AI systems are trained on enormous amounts of copyright‑protected content,” Homar explains. “The key legal question is therefore whether, and under which conditions, such use is permissible without the consent of the rightholders,” he says.

Do you personally use ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Midjourney, DALL‑E or other AI tools?

Of course. It is difficult to engage seriously with the legal challenges of technological innovation if one does not use these technologies personally. Moreover, it must be said clearly: despite the shortcomings of AI applications, it is remarkable how much potential they offer for simplifying various work processes and tasks.

Do you think that people become more creative with AI programs, or lazier and less creative because of AI?

In my opinion, both is true. We certainly become more creative because we acquire new skills through their use, f. e. prompting, and can thus produce results that would otherwise not have been possible or would at least have taken significantly longer.

At the same time, we inevitably lose existing skills when we outsource certain work steps to AI. Just think of the use of translation software. If you no longer have to find the appropriate vocabulary yourself or apply grammatical rules independently, this hardly contributes to strengthening language skills. The same applies in academia when sources are no longer reviewed independently but are instead processed with the help of AI applications.

Are you more optimistic or more skeptical about AI?

As a researcher, neither one nor the other, but rather open‑minded and at the same time critical. Skepticism is misplaced in as much as this development cannot be stopped.

Optimism is difficult because it is impossible to foresee how the impacts and challenges we are already witnessing today will evolve in five or ten years.

Is there an example from your everyday life that made you realize how strongly AI is already influencing our lives?

In my course “Fundamentals of Legal Academic Writing and Citation”, we recently discussed the rules governing the use of AI in the preparation of bachelor’s theses.

Students were asked to create a list of auxiliary tools that explicitly discloses any AI‑based tools used. This made me wonder which digital services and tools are not AI‑based at all. Search engine queries, research in legal databases, as well as translation and word‑processing software all involve AI in one way or another, even if specific AI features are not actively used.

In your opinion, do lawyers also need technical knowledge in order to deal with AI‑related issues?

Absolutely. In research, questions of regulation and liability can only be addressed if one has at least a basic understanding of how AI applications function.

The same applies to the use of AI systems, as only this enables a constructive and critical approach. Conversely, engineers also require at least a basic understanding of the legal framework.

How difficult is it to keep up with rapid technological development from a legal perspective?

Very difficult. If legislators react too slowly, technological development creates facts that can only be addressed with great difficulty through legal rules.

If legislators react too quickly, however, there is a risk that the necessary technical understanding is lacking and that legal requirements fail to reflect real‑world challenges, are impractical to apply, or produce unintended consequences.

In recent years, especially through the EU’s comprehensive digital law acts, one has unfortunately gained the impression that law and technology are two spheres that do not truly intersect.

Lawyers and engineers must therefore work together to create technology‑sensitive law that maintains its acceptance and regulatory effectiveness while achieving the best possible balance between competing interests.

Reference related to the video

• Homar, P. 2026 (forthcoming). Text and Data Mining, Lawful Access and the Role of Contracts. In: Bonadio/Mezei/Alonso (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative AI and IP in Europe, Cambridge University Press.

• Homar, P. 2022. § 42h UrhG. In: Thiele/Burgstaller (eds.), UrhG4.