Copyright In Synthetic Human-Models Used For Digital Fashion Runways.
I. Legal Framework
1. Copyrightability of Synthetic Models
A synthetic human model is a digital creation, often generated with AI or 3D modeling software.
Copyright law protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium.
Key questions:
Who is the author (human programmer, fashion designer, or AI system)?
Does the work contain “originality” and “creative choices”?
Are AI outputs considered works under copyright law?
2. Derivative Works & Collaborative Authorship
If an AI generates a model based on pre-existing designs:
The AI output may be a derivative work.
The copyright in the derivative work belongs to the human contributor who adds creative input.
If the model is fully autonomous:
Most jurisdictions currently do not recognize AI as an author.
II. Key Legal Cases
1. Naruto v. Slater (The “Monkey Selfie” Case)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2018
Principle: Non-human entities cannot hold copyright.
A monkey took a photograph of itself. The court ruled:
Copyright requires human authorship.
Implication: A fully AI-generated synthetic human model cannot hold copyright in the U.S.
The copyright must attach to a human contributor.
Application to Digital Fashion:
If AI autonomously generates a runway model without human creative control, it is not protected by copyright.
2. Thaler v. Perlmutter
Court: U.S. District Court
Principle: AI-generated works without human authorship are not copyrightable.
Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to register a copyright for a work created solely by AI.
Court ruled it cannot be copyrighted, confirming U.S. precedent.
Application:
Fully AI-designed digital avatars for fashion shows may not be protected unless humans direct design choices, post-processing, or styling.
3. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Court: U.S. District Court
Principle: Exact reproductions of public-domain works lack originality.
A scanned image of a painting does not create a new copyright.
Implication: A synthetic model replicating a real human model or celebrity likeness mechanically may not receive copyright.
Human artistic modifications (pose, styling, lighting, background) are necessary to claim protection.
4. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Principle: Minimal creativity is required to claim copyright.
Mere mechanical or functional reproduction does not suffice.
Implication: For a synthetic human model, the human creator’s contributions (pose, outfit design, digital expression) must reflect independent creative choices.
5. Infopaq v. Danske Dagblades Forening
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union
Principle: Copyright requires the author’s own intellectual creation.
Fully automated creations lacking human intellectual input are unlikely to qualify for protection in the EU.
Implication: Synthetic fashion models designed purely by AI may not be copyrightable under EU law, unless human designers intervene.
6. Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd
Court: UK Court of Appeal
Principle: Authorship is determined by who makes creative decisions.
Software programmers are not automatically authors of output; human direction is key.
Implication: Human designers who program AI and direct the look, styling, or animation of the model may claim authorship in the UK.
7. Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun
Court: China
Principle: AI-assisted works may receive copyright if humans direct and control the creative process.
Human intervention in guiding AI output can result in copyright protection.
Implication: Digital fashion models created under human supervision are likely protected in China.
III. Application to Digital Fashion Runways
Scenario 1: Fully AI-generated model
U.S./EU/UK: No copyright (Thaler, Naruto, Infopaq)
China: Potentially copyrightable with human supervision
Scenario 2: Human-edited AI model
Pose, outfit styling, expression, lighting, and runway choreography directed by humans → copyright likely exists
Originality derived from human creative choices, even if AI assists
Scenario 3: Derivative from copyrighted design
Using AI to replicate copyrighted fashion items or real models → requires authorization, otherwise infringement
IV. Core Legal Principles
Human authorship is essential (U.S., UK, EU)
AI-only creations are generally unprotected
Human intervention transforms AI output into copyrightable work
Derivative works of copyrighted material require permission
Cross-border differences matter: China may be more permissive if human guidance is shown
V. Comparative Jurisdiction Table
| Jurisdiction | AI-only Model | Human-edited AI Model | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. | Not copyrightable | Protected | Feist, Thaler, Naruto |
| EU | Not copyrightable | Protected | Infopaq |
| UK | Depends on creative control | Protected | Nova Productions |
| China | Potentially protected | Protected | Tencent case |
| Australia | Requires human authorship | Protected | Similar principles to UK/US |
VI. Emerging Issues in Digital Fashion
Moral rights: Attribution and integrity of human designers
AI prompt authorship: Can prompts themselves confer authorship rights?
Celebrity likeness rights: Using AI to model real human faces
Cross-border AI-generated fashion shows: Differing protection levels
VII. Key Takeaways
Fully autonomous AI models have very limited or no copyright protection.
Human creative input is decisive for protection.
Copyright law treats synthetic human models as derivative works or collaborative creations, not purely AI products.
Fashion brands must document human involvement to secure rights and avoid infringement.
RELATED Blog
comments