Copyright In AI-Generated Works

20 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

COPYRIGHT IN AI-GENERATED WORKS

1. Core Legal Issue

The central question is:

Can a work created by Artificial Intelligence be protected by copyright, and if so, who is the author?

Traditional copyright law is built on human creativity. AI challenges this foundation because:

AI does not have legal personality

AI does not possess intention, consciousness, or moral rights

AI outputs may be autonomous or semi-autonomous

2. Foundational Principles of Copyright Law

(a) Requirement of Authorship

Across most jurisdictions:

An author is traditionally a natural person

Creativity must originate from human intellectual effort

(b) Originality Standard

U.S.: “Modicum of creativity” (Feist standard)

UK/India: “Skill, labor, and judgment”

Purely mechanical or automated processes fail this test

3. Classification of AI-Generated Works

Courts and scholars generally divide AI outputs into:

AI-Assisted Works

Human controls prompts, selection, editing

Usually copyrightable

Fully Autonomous AI Works

No meaningful human input

Generally not copyrightable

DETAILED CASE LAWS

CASE 1: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884, U.S. Supreme Court)

Facts:

Photographer Napoleon Sarony sued for infringement of a photograph of Oscar Wilde

Defendant argued photographs were mechanical reproductions, not creative works

Legal Issue:

Whether a photograph can be protected under copyright

Judgment:

The Court held:

Sarony exercised creative choices in:

Pose

Lighting

Expression

Composition

Relevance to AI:

This case established that:

Human intellectual conception is essential

Mechanical processes are acceptable only if guided by human creativity

📌 Impact on AI:
If AI merely executes human creative decisions, copyright may exist. If AI independently conceives the work, protection fails.

CASE 2: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991, U.S. Supreme Court)

Facts:

Rural Telephone published a phone directory

Feist copied listings

Rural claimed copyright based on effort (“sweat of the brow”)

Legal Issue:

Is effort alone sufficient for copyright?

Judgment:

Originality = independent creation + minimal creativity

Mere effort or data compilation is insufficient

Relevance to AI:

AI outputs based purely on data recombination may lack originality

Large datasets or computational effort do not equal creativity

📌 Impact on AI:
AI-generated content that statistically predicts outputs without creative judgment may fail the originality test.

CASE 3: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case) (2018, U.S. Ninth Circuit)

Facts:

A monkey (Naruto) took selfies using a photographer’s camera

Animal rights group sued claiming the monkey owned the copyright

Legal Issue:

Can a non-human be an author under copyright law?

Judgment:

Non-humans lack standing

Congress did not intend animals to be authors

Relevance to AI:

AI, like animals, lacks legal personhood

Non-human authorship is invalid

📌 Impact on AI:
Fully autonomous AI cannot be a copyright owner, regardless of creativity.

CASE 4: U.S. Copyright Office – Stephen Thaler & “Creativity Machine” (2022–2023)

Facts:

Stephen Thaler sought copyright for artwork created entirely by his AI system

Listed AI as the sole author

Legal Issue:

Can copyright subsist in a work generated without human involvement?

Decision:

Application rejected

No human creative contribution existed

Reasoning:

AI cannot exercise creative intent

📌 Impact on AI:
This is the clearest modern authority rejecting copyright in fully AI-generated works.

CASE 5: Zarya of the Dawn (Kristina Kashtanova) Case (2023, U.S.)

Facts:

Comic book created using Midjourney AI

Human authored story and arrangement

Images generated by AI prompts

Legal Issue:

Which parts of the work are copyrightable?

Decision:

Text and arrangement: copyrightable

AI-generated images: not copyrightable

Prompting alone ≠ authorship

Key Holding:

Human creativity must control the final expressive form

📌 Impact on AI:
AI-assisted works may receive partial copyright protection

CASE 6: Nova Productions v. Mazooma Games (2007, UK Court of Appeal)

Facts:

Video game outputs depended on player input

Question arose regarding authorship of generated images

Judgment:

Programmer was the author

Player input did not determine expressive content

Relevance to AI:

Authorship lies with the person who controls the creative framework

📌 Impact on AI:
If a human designs the creative structure, they may claim authorship even if outputs vary.

CASE 7: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, India Supreme Court)

Facts:

Judgment:

Adopted “modicum of creativity” standard

Human intellectual effort required

Relevance to AI:

Indian law would likely reject copyright in purely AI-generated works

Human selection, editing, or judgment is essential

COMPARATIVE LEGAL POSITION

Jurisdiction	AI as Author	Human-AI Collaboration
United States	❌ No	✅ Yes (if creative control exists)
United Kingdom	❌ AI not legal person	✅ Programmer or user may qualify
India	❌ No	✅ If human creativity shown

CURRENT LEGAL CONSENSUS

AI cannot be an author

Fully autonomous AI works are not copyrightable

Human-guided AI works may be protected

Prompting alone is insufficient

CONCLUSION

A tool, not a creator

A means, not an author

Until legislatures intervene, courts will continue to deny copyright protection to works created independently by AI, while protecting human-AI collaborative works to the extent of human creativity involved.

Copyright In AI-Generated Works