Judicial Responses to AI-Generated Works: A Comparative Case Law Analysis on Copyright
Marija Ampovska
Goce Delcev University, Stip , Macedonia Północnahttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9147-5890
Abstrakt
As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly contributes to the creation of original content, legal systems are under pressure to determine whether and how such outputs can be protected by copyright. While much of the academic debate focuses on future legislative reforms, courts and existing legal frameworks are already being tested by real disputes. This paper examines how different jurisdictions, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and China, approach the copyright protection of AI-generated works, both at the level of underlying legal doctrine and through judicial interpretation. The first part of the paper outlines the key principles of copyright law in each system, including definitions of authorship, standards of originality, and relevant exceptions or limitations that may apply to AI training and output. The second part shifts to case law, examining how courts have applied or challenged these principles when addressing AI-generated work. In doing so, the paper focuses on three core legal issues: whether AI-generated works can meet originality thresholds, how authorship and ownership are assigned, and how the expression–idea dichotomy is interpreted in this context. It is within this judicial context that the present study situates its analysis, using case law as the primary lens to examine how legal systems are grappling with the growing presence of AI in creative processes. By comparing these legal systems and judicial approaches, the paper demonstrates that while human authorship remains a consistent requirement, some courts have begun to accommodate more nuanced forms of human–machine collaboration. Ultimately, the study argues that in the absence of clear legislative reform, courts are actively shaping the emerging boundaries of copyright in the age of generative AI. In addition, this paper contributes to the growing literature on AI and copyright by providing a doctrinal analysis grounded in case law, revealing not only how courts are applying traditional concepts to new technologies, but also where doctrinal tensions are beginning to emerge.
Słowa kluczowe:
AI systems, AI-generated works, copyright, authorship, originalityBibliografia
Abbott, Ryan. The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort Liability. Boston: Boston University Press, 2020.
Chan, Kelvin. “French Authors Sue Meta over Use of Works to Train AI.” AP News, October 14, 2022. Accessed March 12, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/168b32059e70d0509b0a6ac407f37e8a.
Chatterton, Edward, Joanne Zhang, and Liam Blackford. “Another Chinese Court Finds that AI-Generated Images Can Be Protected by Copyright: The Changshu People’s Court and the ‘Half Heart’ Case.” Technology’s Legal Edge, March 21, 2025. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.technologyslegaledge.com/2025/03/another-chinese-court-finds-that-ai-generated-images-can-be-protected-bycopyright-the-changshu-peoples-court-and-the-half-heart-case/.
Chloupek, Vojtěch. “Czech Court Denies Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Work in First Ever Ruling.” Bird & Bird, May 29, 2024. Accessed April 26, 2025. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2024/czech-republic/czech-court-denies-copyright-protection-of-ai-generated-work-in-first-ever-ruling.
Collins, Anna. “Interpreting Code: Judicial Approaches to AI-Generated Works.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law 28, no. 1 (2023): 45–72.
De Roza, Jolyn. “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Culture Industries and Copyright Law.” UNSW Law Journal Student Series, no. 26 (2020): 1–18. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2020/26.html.
Franceschelli, Giorgio, and Musolesi Mirco. “Copyright in Generative Deep Learning.” Data & Policy 4 (2022): e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.10. (Crossref)
Gaffar, Hafiz, and Saleh Albarashdi. “Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape.” Asian Journal of International Law 15, no. 1 (2024): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251323000735. (Crossref)
Geistfeld, Mark A., Ernst Karner, Bernhard A. Koch, and Christiane Wendehorst. Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Software. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110775402. (Crossref)
Ginsburg, Jane C., and Luke Ali Budiardjo. “Authors and Machines.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 34, no. 2 (2019): 343–448. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SF2MC24.
Hangzhou Internet Court. “User-Generated Ultraman Infringing Pictures, AI Platform Responsible? The Analysis of the Judgment of the Hangzhou Internet Court.” Accessed February 10, 2025. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4NzExNTkyMQ==&mid=2247507667&idx=1&sn=c524cc81dff2bf48a3469f94173fa8b7.
Kalhor-Witzel, Ronak. “Germany: Landmark Court Decision Deals with AI Training and Copyright.” Norton Rose Fulbright, August 2024. Accessed April 26, 2025. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/218a3079/germany-landmark-court-decision-deals-with-ai-training-and-copyright.
Kretschmer, Martin. “Regulating Generative AI: A Copyright Perspective.” European Intellectual Property Review no. 45 (12) (2023): 761–72.
Liu, Qi, and Ying Wang. “AI Generated Creativity and Copyright Law in China.” China Legal Review 12, no. 2 (2024): 89–110.
Rubab, Huma, Muhammad Jan, Kiran Nisar, and Sehla Noor. “Copyright and AI-Generated Content: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Perspectives in China and the United States.” International Journal of Social Science Archives 7, no. 2 (2024): 387–95.
Smith, Garrett, and Danielle Citron. “Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race, and Power in AI.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 35, no. 1 (2022): 1–50.
Söğüt, Atilla. “Dealing with AI-Generated Works: Lessons from the CDPA Section 9(3).” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 19, no. 1 (2024): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad102. (Crossref)
Tan, Loke-Khoon, James Lau, and Harrods Wong. “China: A Landmark Court Ruling on Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works.” Global Litigation News, May 8, 2024. Accessed April 15, 2025. https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2024/05/08/china-a-landmark-court-ruling-on-copyright-protectionfor-ai-generated-works/.
Thambaiya, Nirogini, Kanchana Kariyawasam, and Chamila Talagala. “Copyright Law in the Age of AI: Analysing the AI-Generated Works and Copyright Challenges in Australia.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 39, no. 2 (2025): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2025.2486893. (Crossref)
UK Intellectual Property Office. “Call for Views: AI and Intellectual Property.” Accessed June 26, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificialintelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views.
U.S. Copyright Office. “Policy on Copyright Registration of Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence.” Accessed June 26, 2025. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf.
Vanherpe, Jozefien. “AI and IP: A Tale of Two Acronyms.” In Artificial Intelligence and the Law, edited by Jan De Bruyne and Cedric Vanleenhove, 207–40. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2021. (Crossref)
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO Report on Intellectual Property and AI. Geneva: WIPO, 2023.
Zhuk, Alesia. “Navigating the Legal Landscape of AI Copyright: A Comparative Analysis of EU, US, and Chinese Approaches.” AI and Ethics, no. 4 (2024): 1299–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00299-0. (Crossref)
Goce Delcev University, Stip https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9147-5890
