AI continues to revolutionize various industries, and its rapid development shows no signs of slowing down. Jurisdictions worldwide are actively adapting their laws to keep pace with AI’s evolution. In one of our earlier articles, “Whether AI-Generated Work Could be Protected by Copyright Law“, we explored this issue from a US legal perspective. Today, we delve into a landmark decision by the Municipal Court in Prague, the first EU court to rule on whether AI-generated work can be protected by copyright law.
This provides an opportunity to compare US and EU perspectives on the copyright protection of AI-generated work and highlight three key takeaways for general counsels and companies relying on AI.
The Municipal Court in Prague’s Landmark Decision
The Municipal Court in Prague recently addressed the question of whether AI-generated work could be protected by copyright law. The case involved a Plaintiff who used an AI program, DALL-E, to generate an image based on the prompt: “create a visual representation of two parties signing a business contract in a formal setting, such as a conference room or a law firm office in Prague. Just show your hands.“
The Plaintiff subsequently published the AI-generated image on his website, only to discover that the Defendant had copied and posted the image on their website without authorization. The Plaintiff then sought an injunction to remove or to takedown the AI-generated image, claiming copyright infringement.
The central issue in the case was whether the Plaintiff was the author of the AI-generated image. While it was undisputed that the image was created by AI, the Plaintiff argued that the specific assignment he provided to the AI program made him the author. However, the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting his claim that the image was generated based on his specific assignment.
The court eventually dismissed the Plaintiff’s case on two main grounds:
- 1. AI Cannot Be the Author: The court held that AI cannot be the author of the AI-generated image, as “author” can only refer to a natural person. The Plaintiff in this case failed to prove that he was the author of the AI-generated image.
- 2. Lack of Unique Creative Activity: The court emphasized that a work of authorship must result from the unique creative activity of a natural person. The Plaintiff could not demonstrate that the AI-generated image was uniquely the result of his creative activity, only that it was created with AI assistance.
Therefore, the court concluded that the AI-generated image was not a work of authorship and did not belong to the Plaintiff.
Comparative Analysis with US Copyright Law
This decision mirrors the US stance on AI-generated work, where cases like Zarya of the Dawn and A Recent Entrance to Paradise have reinforced that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection. Both US and EU courts have firmly ruled that AI cannot be considered an author under copyright law, and only a natural person can hold such a title.
However, a careful reading of the EU court’s decision suggests a potential path for AI-generated work to receive copyright protection if human authorship and unique creative activity by a natural person can be established. While this issue remains unresolved, it hints at a possible future interpretation of the law.
Three Key Takeaways for General Counsels and Companies
Given the current legal landscape, general counsels should be cautious when relying on AI to generate work. Here are three practical guidelines:
- 1. Ensure Human Authorship: Across jurisdictions, it is clear that AI cannot be an author. It is crucial to ensure that a natural person is integral to the creation process to qualify for copyright protection, involving a natural person who contributes significant creative input and direction.
- 2. Avoid Autonomous AI-Generated Work: To qualify for copyright protection, AI should be used as a tool to assist human creators rather than autonomously generating work. The natural person must maintain significant control over the direction, instructions, and creative input.
- 3. Document the Creation Process: Document the entire creative process to establish human authorship and control. This can include video recordings or detailed logs demonstrating the human contribution and direction given to the AI.
Conclusion
The intersection of AI and copyright law is still developing, with courts in both the US and EU emphasizing the necessity of human authorship. As technology continues to evolve, legal standards will likely adapt to strike a balance between technological innovation and the protection of creative works. General counsels and companies must stay informed and cautious, ensuring compliance with current legal requirements while preparing for future developments.
If you are looking to develop AI tools or have concerns about intellectual property infringement or safeguarding the output due to the use of AI in your organisation, please reach out to our dedicated team of professionals. With a deep understanding of both AI technology and intellectual property law, our lawyers are well-equipped to assist you throughout the entire process, ensuring that your AI-generated work receives the protection it deserves in the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
About the authors
Ong Johnson
Partner
Head of Technology Practice Group
Transactions and Dispute Resolution, Technology,
Media & Telecommunications, Intellectual Property,
Fintech, Privacy and Cybersecurity
johnson.ong@hhq.com.my
.
Lo Khai Yi
Partner
Co-Head of Technology Practice Group
Technology, Media & Telecommunications, Intellectual
Property, Corporate/M&A, Projects and Infrastructure,
Privacy and Cybersecurity
ky.lo@hhq.com.my.
More of our Tech articles that you should read:
