ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LAW. HOW DO YOU PERCEIVE IT? HOW (OR WHETHER) SHOULD WORKS GENERATED BY AI PROTECTED?
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Generative AI, Copyright Law, Intellectual Property, Human Authorship, Originality, Ownership Models, Legal Reform, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Public Domain.Abstract
This article examines the profound challenges posed by generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) to traditional intellectual property systems, focusing on copyright protection for AI-generated works. As AI systems evolve from basic computational tools to autonomous creators of text, imagery, and music, the core anthropocentric doctrines of copyright—specifically human authorship and originality—are placed under unprecedented strain. Through a comparative analysis of legislative frameworks and judicial approaches in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, including a detailed evaluation of the seminal case Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), this paper explores the competing legal models of AI-work ownership: user ownership, developer ownership, and the public domain. The author argues that existing copyright regimes cannot adequately resolve these ambiguities through minor doctrinal adaptations. Ultimately, this paper proposes the establishment of a statutory "human creative contribution" test as a primary standard for protectability, alongside recommendations for training-data transparency, fair remuneration for creators, and international legislative harmonization.
References
1. Abbott R, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press 2020).
2. Bently L, Sherman B, Gangjee D and Johnson P, Intellectual Property Law (6th edn, OUP 2022).
3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886.
4. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK).
5. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10.
6. Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co Inc 499 US 340 (1991).
7. Guadamuz A, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’(2017) WIPO Magazine, Issue 5
8. Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2009] ECR I-6569.
9. Samuelson P, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185.
10. Thaler v Perlmutter 687 F Supp 3d 140 (DDC 2023).
11. United States Copyright Act 1976 (17 USC).
12. US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part 2 – Copyrightability (2025).
13. US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).
14. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Copyright and Generative Artificial Intelligence (WIPO 2024).
15. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (WIPO 2023).
16. Yanisky-Ravid S and Liu X, ‘When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: An Alternative Model for Patent Law at the 3A Era’ (2018) 39 Cardozo Law Review 2215.
