1. Naruto v. Slater (US, 9th Circuit, 2018) – “No non-human authorship”

Facts

A monkey took a famous selfie using a photographer’s camera. The photographer claimed copyright over the images.

Issue

Can a non-human (animal—or by analogy AI) be an author under copyright law?

Decision

The court held:

• Copyright protection applies only to human authors
• Non-human creations cannot qualify for copyright ownership

Legal Principle

This case is frequently used as the foundational rule for AI debates:

Copyright requires human authorship as a threshold condition

Relevance to AI Sustainable Design

If an AI generates an eco-friendly bottle shape or biodegradable packaging design without sufficient human creative input, the output may not be copyrightable.

2. Thaler v. Perlmutter (US, 2023–2024) – AI cannot be inventor/author alone

Facts

Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to register works created entirely by his AI system (“DABUS”) as the author/inventor.

Issue

Can an AI system be recognized as an inventor or copyright author?

Decision

US courts ruled:

• Only a human being can be an inventor under patent law
• Copyright Office also rejected AI-only authorship claims

Legal Principle

• AI-generated works without human contribution are not protectable under current US IP law

Relevance to Sustainable Design

If AI independently generates:

• a zero-waste furniture design
• carbon-neutral packaging geometry
  …it will not receive IP protection unless a human demonstrates creative control or contribution

3. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (US Supreme Court, 1991) – Originality threshold

Facts

A telephone directory was copied by another publisher. The original publisher claimed copyright.

Issue

Is a compilation of factual data protected by copyright?

Decision

The Court ruled:

• Facts are not protected
• Only original selection or arrangement is protected

Legal Principle

Copyright requires:

• minimal creativity
• independent intellectual effort

Relevance to AI + Sustainable Design

AI systems often generate designs by:

• optimizing datasets
• combining existing eco-patterns

Thus:

• If AI output is purely algorithmic recombination → no originality
• If a human curates or selects sustainable outputs → possible protection

4. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Canada, 2004) – Skill and judgment standard

Facts

The Law Society created copies of legal materials for library users. Publishers sued for infringement.

Issue

What level of creativity is needed for copyright?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada held:

• “Originality” requires skill and judgment
• Not just mechanical effort

Legal Principle

Original work must reflect:

• intellectual effort
• human decision-making

Relevance to AI Sustainable Design

In AI-assisted eco-design:

• If a designer only clicks “generate”
  → no meaningful skill/judgment
• If a designer refines outputs for:
  • material efficiency
  • environmental impact
    → protection becomes stronger

5. Nova Productions Ltd. v. Mazooma Games Ltd. (UK, 2007) – Machine-generated outputs and authorship

Facts

A video game produced visual frames automatically during gameplay. Question arose: who owns the generated images?

Issue

Are machine-generated outputs protected, and who is the author?

Decision

The UK court held:

• The programmer or user providing input commands is the author
• The machine is not an author

Legal Principle

Authorship may attach to:

• human who designed the system, OR
• human who controls the output-generating process

Relevance to Sustainable Design

For AI-designed green products:

• If a designer sets parameters (e.g., “minimize carbon footprint, use bamboo-based composite”)
  → designer may be considered author
• If AI runs autonomously → protection weakens

6. Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd (Australia, 2012) – Computer-generated compilations

Facts

Safety data sheets were generated using a computer system that assembled text from a database. A dispute arose over copyright ownership.

Issue

Can computer-generated compilations be copyrighted, and who owns them?

Decision

The court found:

• Works generated by automated systems require human authorship in the expressive elements
• Purely machine-generated text lacked clear human authorship

Legal Principle

Even if software produces the final output:

• Copyright depends on human intellectual contribution in structure or content selection

Relevance to Sustainable Product Design

AI-generated eco-packaging manuals or lifecycle reports:

• may not be protected unless humans:
  • structure the data
  • choose sustainability parameters
  • refine final expression

7. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (CJEU, EU, 2009) – Minimal creativity in expression

Facts

A media monitoring company copied short newspaper excerpts for summaries.

Issue

Are small excerpts protected by copyright?

Decision

EU Court ruled:

• Even small parts can be protected if they contain author’s intellectual creation

Legal Principle

Protection arises if:

• expression reflects personal intellectual creation

Relevance to AI Sustainable Design

If AI assists in designing:

• recyclable product geometry
• biodegradable materials layout

Protection depends on whether:

• human input reflects creative choices in sustainability optimization

Overall Legal Position on Human–Machine Co-Authored Sustainable Designs

1. AI is NOT a legal author (globally consistent principle)

Across jurisdictions:

• US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia → require human authorship

2. Human contribution is the key determinant

Protection depends on:

• prompt engineering depth
• design selection and refinement
• sustainability optimization choices
• iterative human control over outputs

3. “Co-authorship” is not automatic

Legal systems generally do NOT recognize:

• equal AI-human co-authorship

Instead, they recognize:

• human-authored work assisted by AI

Practical Outcome for Sustainable Product Design Industry

A sustainable AI-generated product design is more likely to be protected if:

• A human defines sustainability constraints (carbon target, recyclability level)
• AI generates multiple variants
• Human selects and modifies final design
• Human documents design rationale

It is less likely protected if:

• AI autonomously generates final design
• Human role is purely passive (click-to-generate)