The dissertation research solves the scientific task, which is to develop theoretical provisions and practical recommendations for improving the constitutional and legal regulation of the right to own, use, or dispose of the results of his intellectual or creative activities. The legal nature and the author's definition of the concepts of the objective right to own, use, or dispose of the results of his intellectual or creative activities , creative activity are officially expressed and recognized in society rules of conduct of participants in constitutional and legal relations disposal of the results of intellectual, creative activity, protected by the state, according to which the behavior of the participants of these relations is assessed as lawful or unlawful; the subjective right to own, use, or dispose of the results of his intellectual or creative activities and creative activity is a legally secured opportunity for the subject of intellectual and creative activity to own, use, or dispose of the results of his intellectual or creative activities . It is argued that the novelty of the result of creative activity and the way of intellectual activity is an integral essential element of the objective constitutional right to own, use and dispose of the results of their intellectual, creative activity, and ensuring the interests of the creator of creative and intellectual activity is an integral element. subjective constitutional right to own, use and dispose of the results of their intellectual, creative activity. It is established that the concepts of "intellectual activity" and "creative activity" are used in the legislation of Ukraine: 1) to denote the results of human activity; 2) designation of preconditions for creation of objects of intellectual property rights; 3) designation of criteria for the emergence of intellectual property rights. It is further argued that the terms "intellectual activity", "creative activity", "intellectual creative activity" and "intellectual property" are not identical concepts. The assertion that intellectual activity can have a sign of creativity was further developed, while creative activity does not presuppose such a sign as the presence of intelligence in the creator of the result of creative activity. The result of human intellectual activity can contain a creative component, and the result of creative activity can be achieved without the use of human intelligence. It is emphasized that the uniqueness of the result of creative activity is not a necessary feature of creative activity. Creativity is not a mandatory criterion for classifying the result of human activity as objects of intellectual property rights, criteria of originality are mandatory. It was further developed that one of the main features of classifying the result of creative activity as an object of intellectual property rights is its novelty, and intellectual activity - the originality of the method of implementation.
