Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed the way creative works are produced. From generating paintings and music to writing literature and developing software code, AI systems are increasingly capable of producing outputs that resemble human creativity. This technological advancement raises a pressing legal question: who, if anyone, owns the copyright of AI-generated works? Traditional copyright law is premised on the notion of human authorship, but the emergence of autonomous or semi-autonomous AI challenges this foundation.

This article explores the copyrightability of AI-generated works by examining three key perspectives: (1) the requirement of human authorship, (2) the possibility of attributing authorship to AI itself, and (3) alternative models such as treating AI outputs as public domain or creating sui generis rights.

Human Authorship Requirement

Under most copyright regimes—including the Berne Convention, U.S. Copyright Act, and the EU directives—authorship is inherently tied to human creativity. The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly stated that works “produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author” are not protected by copyright. Similarly, in the UK case Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd (2007), the court emphasized the necessity of human creative effort.

Proponents of the human authorship requirement argue that copyright is meant to incentivize human creativity. Without human input, there is no moral or economic justification for granting exclusive rights. From this perspective, AI-generated works created without substantial human intervention should not qualify for copyright protection.

AI as Author?

Another controversial proposal is to recognize AI itself as the “author.” This approach, however, collides with the legal notion of personhood. AI systems, lacking legal personality, cannot hold property rights, enter into contracts, or enforce their interests in courts. To grant authorship to AI would require a radical rethinking of the legal framework, potentially extending intellectual property rights to non-human entities. Critics warn that such recognition risks diluting the human-centric purpose of copyright.

Alternative Models

Because neither human nor AI authorship neatly resolves the issue, scholars and policymakers have proposed alternative solutions:

1. Attribution to the AI’s owner or programmer. Some argue that the person who designed, trained, or provided instructions to the AI should be considered the author. This model parallels the concept of ownership in employer-employee relationships. However, it remains unclear how much human involvement is sufficient to justify authorship.
2. Public domain status. Another approach is to treat AI-generated works as automatically belonging to the public domain. This would avoid monopolization of machine-created content but might reduce incentives for investment in AI technologies.
3. Sui generis protection. A middle-ground proposal is to create a new legal category for AI-generated works. Such rights could be narrower and shorter in duration than traditional copyright, balancing innovation incentives with public access.

Conclusion

The rise of AI-generated works exposes the limitations of existing copyright frameworks. Current laws, rooted in human authorship, struggle to accommodate outputs that are increasingly autonomous. Recognizing AI as an author is legally problematic, while attributing rights to developers or users raises fairness concerns. Public domain and sui generis models each present their own advantages and drawbacks.

Ultimately, the question of ownership over AI-generated works cannot be resolved solely by extending old principles to new technologies. Instead, it requires a careful reevaluation of the goals of copyright law in the age of artificial intelligence. Legislators worldwide will need to decide whether copyright should remain strictly human-centered or evolve to embrace non-human creativity.