Copyright In Autonomous Machine-Created Digital Murals.
I. Core Legal Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
Most copyright regimes are built on the assumption that authorship requires human intellectual creation. Autonomous AI murals challenge this premise.
II. Foundational U.S. Cases on Authorship & Originality
1. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Facts
A lithography company reproduced a photograph taken by Napoleon Sarony without permission. The defendant argued that photographs were mechanical reproductions, not authored works.
Legal Issue
Can a photograph qualify as a copyrighted work?
Supreme Court Holding
Yes. The Court held that a photograph is copyrightable if it reflects the author’s intellectual conception.
Legal Significance
The Court emphasized:
Copyright protects “original intellectual conceptions of the author.”
This case establishes:
Copyright protects human creative decisions
Mechanical processes alone are insufficient
Creativity must originate from a human mind
Relevance to Autonomous Murals
If a digital mural is generated entirely by an AI without human creative control, there may be no “intellectual conception of the author.”
Thus, under this precedent, fully autonomous murals likely lack copyright.
2. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Facts
Rural Telephone published a white pages directory. Feist copied names and numbers.
Legal Issue
Does effort (“sweat of the brow”) create copyright?
Holding
No. Copyright requires:
Independent creation
A minimal degree of creativity
Legal Doctrine Established
The Court clarified:
Originality = Independent creation + minimal creativity.
Mere labor is insufficient.
Application to AI Murals
If:
The mural is independently generated by AI
But contains no human creativity
Then it fails the human originality requirement.
Even if programming the AI required effort, the mural itself must contain human-authored creativity.
3. Naruto v. Slater
Facts
A macaque monkey took selfies using a photographer’s camera. PETA sued on behalf of the monkey, claiming copyright.
Legal Issue
Can a non-human be an author under U.S. copyright law?
Holding
No. The Ninth Circuit held:
The Copyright Act does not extend authorship to animals.
Only humans can be authors.
Judicial Reasoning
The court interpreted statutory language as implicitly human-centered.
Relevance to AI Murals
If animals cannot be authors, AI systems likely cannot either.
An autonomous AI mural would therefore lack copyright protection unless a human qualifies as the author.
This case is frequently cited in AI copyright discussions.
4. Thaler v. Perlmutter
Facts
Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to register a work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” created entirely by his AI system (Creativity Machine), listing the AI as author.
Legal Issue
Can an AI be recognized as the author under U.S. law?
Holding (U.S. District Court, 2023)
No. The court ruled:
Human authorship is a “bedrock requirement.”
Works generated without human involvement are not copyrightable.
Key Judicial Statement
“Human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright.”
Importance
This is the most direct judicial ruling on AI-generated art.
Implication for Digital Murals
If:
The mural is generated autonomously
No human makes creative decisions about expression
Then it likely falls into the public domain immediately.
III. UK Approach – Different Legislative Model
Unlike the U.S., the UK explicitly addresses computer-generated works.
5. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – Section 9(3)
Statutory Provision
For computer-generated works:
“The author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Legal Effect
This creates a legal fiction:
Even if no human directly creates the artwork,
The person who made the arrangements (programmer or operator) may be deemed the author.
Application to Autonomous Murals
If an AI autonomously generates a public digital mural in London:
The programmer or commissioning party may qualify as the author.
However, courts have not yet fully tested this provision for advanced generative AI.
IV. European Union Standard: “Author’s Own Intellectual Creation”
6. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening
Legal Principle
The Court of Justice of the European Union held:
A work is protected if it is the author’s own intellectual creation.
Interpretation
This requires:
Free and creative choices
Expression of personality
AI Relevance
If an AI independently determines:
Composition
Color scheme
Perspective
Subject arrangement
Without human free and creative choices → no protection under EU law.
V. Ownership Complications in AI Murals
Even when some human involvement exists, courts must evaluate:
1. Prompt Engineering
Is writing prompts sufficient creativity?
If:
Prompts dictate specific aesthetic outcomes
→ Human authorship is more likely.
If:
Prompts are vague (“Create a futuristic mural”)
→ AI may be seen as determining expression.
2. Training Data Issues
If AI was trained on copyrighted murals:
Potential issues:
Derivative works
Substantial similarity
Dataset infringement
These are separate from authorship but legally significant.
VI. Comparative Summary
| Jurisdiction | Fully Autonomous AI Mural | Human-Prompted AI Mural |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Not protected (per Thaler) | Possibly protected if sufficient human creativity |
| UK | Author = person making arrangements | Likely protected |
| EU | Likely not protected | Protected if human intellectual creation |
VII. Emerging Theoretical Approaches
Scholars propose:
Public Domain Default – AI works belong to everyone.
Programmer Ownership Model – Based on investment.
User Authorship Model – Prompt writer is author.
New Sui Generis Right – Separate AI right regime.
None are universally adopted.
VIII. Practical Example
Imagine:
An autonomous AI projects a dynamic mural on a skyscraper without human intervention, deciding:
Theme
Visual composition
Color dynamics
Under U.S. law (based on Thaler and Naruto):
→ No copyright subsists.
Under UK law:
→ The entity making arrangements may own it.
Under EU law:
→ Likely unprotected unless human creative control is proven.
IX. Key Takeaways
Copyright law is human-centered.
Autonomous AI works face major protection hurdles.
Jurisdictions differ significantly.
Litigation in this area is still developing.
The degree of human creative control is decisive.
RELATED Blog
comments