The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law has become a crucial point of focus for legal systems worldwide, particularly in Europe. As AI continues to reshape creative industries, questions surrounding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works have emerged, demanding a re-evaluation of traditional intellectual property (IP) frameworks. Recent legislative efforts, such as the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”), seek to manage AI’s risks while fostering innovation, but they leave important issues unaddressed. Among these is the question of authorship: who owns the copyright in works produced by AI systems without direct human input?
The EU’s regulatory landscape, while proactive, has yet to offer a clear solution to the problem of AI authorship. The AI Act introduced a comprehensive framework focusing on transparency and accountability. However, it does not explicitly address the copyright implications of AI-generated content. Additionally, while the InfoSoc Directive and the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790) provide a legal foundation for AI’s role in research—particularly for text and data mining—questions persist about the copyright status of AI-generated works.
These developments are raising fundamental legal questions. In an era where AI can autonomously create art, music, and even literary works, can such outputs be considered “original” under traditional copyright law? More importantly, if these works are deemed original, who should hold the copyright? The conventional understanding of authorship, which places human creativity at the center, seems increasingly incompatible with the growing capabilities of AI. Yet, European regulations continue to favor human creators, with Germany’s Urheberrechtsgesetz clearly stating that works generated solely by AI are ineligible for copyright protection. France, on the other hand, has introduced a bill proposing a framework for the treatment of AI-generated works, but the law still falls short in addressing AI’s role in the creative process.
As European nations grapple with these issues, countries like Germany, France, and Italy are forging ahead with AI-specific copyright laws, striving to balance the protection of human creators with the realities of AI-driven content creation. In Germany, for instance, discussions are underway about whether exemptions for text and data mining should extend to AI’s use of copyrighted material for training purposes. In France, lawmakers have proposed a legal framework that would require AI-generated works to be authorized by the original creators whose content contributed to the AI’s output.
Looking ahead, addressing the challenges posed by AI and copyright law will require a nuanced approach. While current EU legislation provides some direction, it must evolve to accommodate the rapid developments in AI technology. The urgent need for clearer policies around the ownership of AI-generated works and the fair compensation of creators—whether human or machine—cannot be overstated.
As the digital landscape continues to evolve, IP law must adapt accordingly. The future of copyright law is likely to feature new models of authorship, blending human and AI contributions, as well as innovative approaches to licensing and distribution. The growing creative potential of AI may be the catalyst for a rethinking of how IP laws define authorship, creativity, and ownership in a digital-first world.