Using Artificial Intelligence Art for the Environment: The Issue of Copyright and Beyond

Part 1: Introduction

Regulating areas of AI for creating art requires the collaborative skills of a diverse group of actors. Everyone must play a part in the development of copyright law and regulations. These people include the developers of AI, those who know about computer programs,  those who develop legislative frameworks for copyright and digital recognition systems, and the creators of AI art images.

The AI art image copyright issue is one of the items governments and regions are dealing with for developing rules and regulations for the 21^st century for artificial intelligence. As part of this development, the United Nations Development Program(UNDP) has written about the value that AI can bring to environmental work.[1] The UNDP  article reviews how environmental objectives can be augmented by AI Art images.

This article will examine the current situation regarding AI art copyright. It sets out the way regions and countries are managing the question of copyright for artists’ AI Art products. For this, it examines the current situation regarding AI art copyright in the United States, Canada, selected countries of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and China. It also mentions methods being developed to allow people to bypass copyright and protect their AI images.

Also covered in the article are philosophies for creating copyright regulations in the 21^st century, and people’s desire to create and distribute AI art material. This will consider how people’s rights can be balanced with methods that benefit the environment in developing regulations for AI Art protection. In addition to philosophies,  concepts of neuroscience and biopsychological models and their  implications for AI will be reviewed.

Part 2: Defining AI

AI has several definitions, but the definition chosen for this work is from an article published by the United Nations about the use of Artificial Intelligence for environmental matters:

AI systems are information-processing technologies that integrate models and algorithms that produce a capacity to learn and to perform cognitive tasks leading to outcomes such as prediction and decision-making in material and virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy by means of knowledge modelling and representation and by exploiting data and calculating correlations.[2]

Artificial intelligence(AI) is a type of AI that generates images, text, videos, and other media in response to prompts that are made to the machine being used.

When we look at the creation of images for environmental matters we need to ask the question, who is responsible for the creation of the image? Is it the person who authored the article or the person who gave the prompts to the AI system? Can it be argued that it is a combination of the two? These are the questions countries and AI developers are asking.

The use of AI algorithms for the creation of artwork raises the question of who the author is and who has the right to claim copyright or protection of the material produced. We know that through AI algorithms, AI tools can produce a book, compose a melody, or develop computer applications. This offers opportunities for people to use AI algorithms to develop works in which word prompts allow them to create an artistic product. There are situations where the creator spends a great deal of time working with the computer prompts and parameters, and other situations where the creator has intervened minimally, or should the system be programmed to work autonomously,  may have little involvement.

Part 3: Authorship and Intellectual Property

Intellectual property includes intangible rights that protect products that are created by human intelligence. This incorporates musicians,  authors, artists, and inventors who author the creations.

The copyrights are protected by statute for a limited amount of time, so the author or original creator has the exclusive privilege to use these rights unless they are transferred to another. This includes the right to publish, sell, and reproduce the work. Any violation of these rights is referred to as an infringement.[3]

Within the context of copyright, the word, “author” is important. While, in early times, artists were considered artisans of trade, gradually, the term author became associated with originality, authority, and property.[4]

Part 4: Review of AI art products and copyright in Regions and Countries

4.1 European Union

Europe has moved ahead to set the framework of regulations for AI. The AI Act (AI Act) came into force on August 1, 2024, other than Article 113 which sets matters of entry into force and application of the Act. The provisions of the Act come into place on different dates, with all to be effective on August 2, 2026.

The AI Act is a European Union regulation concerning artificial intelligence (AI) which establishes a common regulatory and legal framework for AI within the European Union (EU).[5]   A thorough overview of the Act is provided by A. Guadamuz in the Journal of World Intellectual Property.[6]

The present article does not provide an overview of the AI Act, because, although relevant to the structure being adopted by the European Union for AI, it does not address the matter of copyright for art products. The article does, however, review the situations in two European countries, being the counties of France, and Spain.

4.1(1) France

Copyright law in France protects original works without specifics as to the form of the works. Thus, confusion has resulted as to whether AI-generated works have protection. This uncertainty has led to proposals being put forward as to how people involved in AI can receive recognition.[7]

To address the uncertainty, legislation was introduced in France in 2023 to provide a framework for AI generated work and  the conditions required for copyrighted work.

As this technology is developing rapidly,  laws and regulations are likely to multiply, and decisions made regarding the conditions that allow copyright to be asserted. For the moment, general copyright rules where there is no AI apply,  meaning copyright protection requires the work must be original and will depend on the degree of human intervention as shown in case law on computer generated works.[8]

4.1(2) Spain

Spain only provides copyright protection to works created by a person. There is no protection for  AI art products alone. This is explained in an article by Pablo Pedraza, an intellectual property legal specialist. [9]

He writes about the collective works caveat which provides that more than an autonomous machine is required for creation of the image which will have the right to protection. He also outlines scenarios that may govern the future development of the legal framework for this technology. He sets out four options:

1. Deny Intellectual Property protection.
2. Grant a legal personality. i.e., Electronic personality.
3. Provide a sui generis This is a separate legal classification that would be made for this technological product.
4. Co-ownership or collaboration, rights to the transformed work.

The option to be chosen will depend on the philosophy adopted to draft the regulations.[10] All options are being discussed as AI continues its development and outreach.

Most of the regions and countries in this article adopt a human proprietary approach to the question of regulation of AI images. This is shown by questions such as,  “ [h]ow do we overcome this legal regime?”[11]  One example mentioned in the Pedraza material is a case from the United States. It found that an AI photo taken by a monkey did not qualify for copyright, as a monkey is an animal, not a human.

This article now leaves the European Union, to look at situations in the countries of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and China.

4.2 United States

Copyright law in the United States protects material created by humans. Despite this bold provision, the copyright office hears cases on a case-by-case basis regarding what is considered material created by a human.[12] Also important to the recognition of proprietary interests is the law of copyright infringement where artists show their work is being used without authority and proper recognition. [13]

4.3 Canada

The government of Canada has produced an informative guide on the use of AI but does not answer the question of copyright registration or breach of copyright. [14]

Research shows that the answer to the AI, art image copyright question may be different in Canada from the answer provided by Courts in the  United States. This will depend on the Court’s interpretation of the copyright legislation in  Canada regarding the standards for originality for authorship. Current research shows that the registration of AI-generated images in Canada remains an open question.

The question is presently before the Federal Court of Canada which will provide more guidance in the area when its decision is released.[15]

4.4.United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has called for a public consultation on this topic, which will be completed on February 25, 2025. [16] The Ministerial introduction shows the focus of the UK government to be on economics and balancing the needs of the creative industry and the AI sector. It does not write about the impact of AI on the environment or how artists can use AI to benefit the environment. Given the objectives set out by the Ministry, the authors inquire whether the public has been provided with information about AI’s interaction with interests such as the environment and sustainable development goals, both relevant areas to the development and use of AI in the 21^st century.

In response to the public inquiry, the creative arts community has also criticized the government’s approach. People in the creative arts industry are being called to add their voices to public consultation. [17] This response seeks to provide a voice for these people by helping them walk through the material presented for the inquiry.

It goes a step further, however,  creating an open letter for those involved in the creative arts industry in the UK  to sign. This focuses on copyright, without identifying rights of the commons or AI’s interaction with the environment and sustainable development. That would require artists interested in participating in the public inquiry to craft their responses.

4.5. China

International lawyer, Alfredo Esposito, writes about two legal decisions that help define what is required to make AI work protectable. He writes about two cases, one from the United States, and the other from China. His work adds to the material previously set out for AI copyright in the United States.

The first case Esposito writes about is from the United States. It involved an AI program, using Midjourney software. The work in question was a comic book, Zaraya of the Dawn. It was granted hybrid copyright by the U.S. Copyright Office, allowing copyright for the text of the book but not for the AI images. The Court did, however, confirm the principle that to be protectable, there must be considerable original author contribution.

The second case he writes about is from China. It is a 2023 decision of the Beijing Internet Court. This case provides insight into the degree of interaction a person must have to prove originality. The tribunal found that the person who had created the images had used several prompts and adjusted the parameters to meet  that person’s “ aesthetic choice and personal judgement.”[18] The law firm, Baker and McKenzie, refers to this decision as a “groundbreaking court judgment marking a milestone in Chinese intellectual property.”[19]

These cases show the person making the AI-produced work needs to show considerable ingenuity in managing the software that has been used for the AI product. The Beijing Tribunal mentioned this fact in its decision,  indicating, Mr. Li, who created the AI work,  “made a certain degree of intellectual investment” in creating the image. This included several prompts for the Stable Diffusion software, such as, “high-quality, high-detail color, RAW photo, idol of Japan, highly detailed asymmetrical attractive face, dreamy black eyes, reddish brown hair.” It was also found that Mr. Li’s work excluded features, such as drawing, comics, 3d, and painting. He wanted to ensure those features were not used by Stable Diffusion.

Information in the decision also shows the type of software used by the person is important. For example, the software used in the Chinese case was found to be like a camera, with many parameter settings, whereas the Midjourney software, used in the American case, had fewer customized options. These cases guide what courts and tribunals require to provide copyright protection for AI work produced.

Part 5: Other methods to protect digital artwork.

This article mentions other methods that have been developed for the protection of digital images of artwork. The first is blockchain which provides a method to securely store and record the image. Linked to this method are Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), used to represent the art image and other items. The blockchain concept is defined as follows:

Blockchain is a decentralized and distributed digital ledger that records transactions across multiple computers. Each transaction, or block, is securely linked to the previous one, creating a chain of blocks. This chain is immutable, meaning that once a block is added, it cannot be altered.[20]

The Non-Fungible Token (NFT) has been developed to identify items stored, defined, and traded in the blockchain system. Thus, an artist’s AI work could be an NFT. [21]

The benefits of pairing these technology methods are explored in an article by KMPG, a leading accounting and technology advisor. The KMPG article writes about the power of partnering AI and blockchain.[22]  It also sets out that the Blockchain system may be a valuable method as AI use increases. It suggests that blockchain might be used to protect intellectual property interests given its ability to decentralize identity and capability to verify and ensure the authenticity and ownership of intellectual property.

While useful to mention the development of blockchain and NFTs, regarding AI art protection, this topic of blockchain is outside the scope of this article about copyright for artists’ use of AI to create work. These developments do, however, show that, like copyright, blockchain and NFTs advance a proprietary approach.

Despite this, holding a property interest does not determine how this interest will be used. Should the person using the computer to create AI work desire to use AI images to benefit the environment, there may be a benefit in allowing the human creator to control the AI work produced.

There is also value in conducting public consultations on this question, to determine public will in different regions or countries. This can help shape how regulations and laws are developed, and where controversy occurs in the legal interpretation of the legislation, assist Courts and Tribunals in their decisions.

Part 6: Discussion of the philosophies for AI art copyright and the environment.

AI Technology is developing at a breakneck speed, and new ways of interacting with people and the environment are being developed each day. Questions are being asked about the authenticity of AI images, and the degree of human involvement in the creation of the AI product.

As AI develops more autonomy in making images, fewer prompts and changes of parameters will be required. This may result in the question of copyright finding itself further and further away from traditional proprietary rights that need to be protected. With such changes, the argument for recognizing AI images as sui generis, a separate category, is strengthened. With this, the United Nations’ objective of using AI for environmental purposes leads to the possibility that artists’ AI work can be used to raise environmental awareness, suggest methods to prevent extreme weather environmental impacts, and create environmental programs for communities.

These objectives fit ideas established by theologist and writer Thomas Berry, in  his book, The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future, [23] and his article, The Great Work of the New Millennium. [24] Berry focuses on the need for Western civilization to change its perspective from a quest for “progress -industrial, commercial, money-making [p]rogress,” to one that seeks a relationship with the earth. He writes about principles required to reassess the role of humans in transitioning to a system where humans become functional participants in the Earth community. This requires a shift to a collective community within the Earth system.[25]

Berry’s work illustrates the importance of balancing the role of humans with AI development. It suggests the need for people to revisit the role of  AI and copyright. With the advent of other methods such as blockchain, it raises the question of whether copyright remains important in the 21^st century, and, if so, how it relates to existing environmental concerns.

These questions are also considered by academic Karl -Nikolaus Peifer, in the chapter, The Return of the Commons – Copyright History as a Common Source, in the book Privilege and Property.[26]

Peifer’s article explains that copyright law is shaped by the definition of property with an emphasis on the concepts of exclusivity and control. He shows that these concepts have not gone unchallenged, with the open access movement of knowledge dissemination also being part of copyright history. He writes about the crisis of copyright law and intellectual property rights which have developed systems that lack acceptance by users, consumers, and creators.

Peifer promotes an approach to the AI copyright issue by revisiting author rights to create a system that has public acceptance. He does not go further to look at the rights of the environment. Melding his will to have a system that is acceptable to people with Thomistic theory, AI regulations could focus on the common good to ensure proprietary rights benefit stainable development goals, and the environment. This would satisfy Peifer’s goal, for public acceptance of the regulations governing these technologies by AI users, consumers, and creators.

A second article, Thomistic Intellect, Neuroscience, and the Implications for AI,  is also based on Thomistic ideology.[27]  The writer, Tim Williams adopts the position that Thomistic intellect is a spiritual faculty that exists in humans but is distinct from ordinary reasoning. For this, he refers to abstract reasoning.

Williams refers to three elements to show this form of intellect: simple apprehension, judgment, and intuition of being. He opines that neuroscience seeks to match mental processes with neural activity which provides a better understanding of cognition, and brain function. He writes that the gap between Thomism and neuroscience can be filled by intuition, which acts as a bridge between subjective and objective dimensions and provides grounding for empirical and logical knowledge.

Relating his argument to the philosophical aspects of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and AI, he writes that the Thomistic Perspective of NLP and AI leads to a cautious approach to the use of both. He mentions concerns about reductionism or oversimplifying human cognition. He finds there is skepticism about whether AI can achieve true consciousness. Finally, he indicates that the Thomistic approach demands a strong focus on the ethical implications of AI including matters of privacy, job displacement, and the use of autonomous weapons.

Williams writes that following a Neuroscientific Perspective leads to a more optimistic approach to NLP and AI. He writes that this approach provides a foundation for providing a theoretical framework for modeling neural networks that may lead to breakthroughs in brain-computer interfaces and enhanced cognitive understanding. Finally, he writes that employing a neuroscientific perspective focuses on the functional capabilities of AI in priority to philosophical questions about consciousness, the nature of the mind, and ethics.

Whether these two philosophies can be married is uncertain. Both show that regulation of AI raises important decisions for the role of humans with one another and with the environment. For the question at hand, being the copyright of an artist’s  AI product, the Thomistic approach seeks a balance between human and environmental rights. In contrast, the neurological approach would focus on promoting the functional capabilities of AI. Showing how those functional capabilities are tied to the well-being and care of the environment may be the way both theories can co-exist in developing AI copyright regulations.

Part 7: Biopsychological Model for AI-Created Artistic Products

Another example that shows the complexity of author and copyright issues is by using a biopsychological approach. This method was developed based on the interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors. It is often associated with George Engel who suggested it for the first time in 1977 in connection with medicine and health.[28] Engel stressed that biological processes, psychological circumstances, and sociocultural factors are  interconnected and should be considered when analyzing an individual’s health.

Although initially used in the context of health and disease, the approach has now been expanded to other areas such as the study of creativity and art. In this context, the three factors are examined concerning the artist’s decisions and the art produced. Thus, understanding the artist’s background is crucial for the interpretation of that person’s production. The artist’s childhood, schooling, physical surroundings, and cultural factors inform the creative choices the artist makes. For instance, the use of bright colors may reveal the artist’s optimistic childhood, while abstract shapes may result from philosophical contemplation or anger toward the conventions of art.

This framework can also be used for AI-created art products, recognizing there will be some differences based on AI characteristics, and the role of the user. While applying the biopsychological approach to AI art provides insights into its creation process, it also raises questions about the authenticity of the work and the ethical responsibilities of users. Research shows the question has arisen as to whether it is possible for  AI to truly replace the emotional depth of human experience.[29]  This echoes Williams’ skepticism, referred to earlier in this article, about whether AI can achieve true consciousness. Or it may be that one can conclude that the value of the AI product lies in augmenting human creativity.

Part 7.1 Biopsychological Model for AI-Created Artistic Products

With the emergence of AI, the term “AI Artist” does not represent an individual who has lived through the interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors but rather reflects a machine made by human individuals for a purpose. As such, we can think of the process of AI art generation as a collaborative composition consisting of influences, decisions, and human effort.

Part 7.2 Background of the “AI Artist”

“AI-generated art” is rooted in the dataset it has been trained on, its architecture, and the objectives provided by its creators.[30]  For instance, an AI placed into the world of Renaissance Art is an AI conditioned with the mindset of that period and its aesthetic preferences.

Also, developers, like mentors or educators, play a role in “raising” the AI. Their decisions—what data to include, which algorithms to use, and how to fine-tune the model—reflect their biases, preferences, and artistic values.

Part 7.3 Influences on AI’s Surroundings and Agents

The context in which  AI operates, such as user inputs or constraints in its task, influences its “choices.” A user prompting AI with keywords like “melancholy” or “joy” affects the resulting artistic product.

Similarly, the socio-political context at the time of AI’s development shapes its outputs, a concept discussed as part of AI’s environment, meaning the, surroundings in which an AI agent operates and interacts. This will influence creativity. For instance, AI-generated artistic products in the 2020s explore themes like automation, alienation, and humanity’s relationship with technology. Related to this article, AI-generated artistic products would explore themes of environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity,  and the changing climate. This could also include the environmental impact AI development has on the environment.

Part 7.4 The Role of the User: A Collaborative Creation

The artist user takes on the role of the most important figure, as being in charge of the AI’s results because of the prompts, advancements, and choices made. This symbiotic relationship between the user and the machine is espoused by Caldwell in an article in the Houston Law Review that argues the user is clothed with creativity and legal authorship in AI works.[31]   For example, an artist may decide:

(1) Which prompt to use (e.g., “sunset in surrealist style” vs. “geometric abstract patterns”).

(2) Which among the generated outputs to select for further refinement?

(3) How to fine-tune the artwork by providing feedback to the AI or focusing on specific details.

Each of these elements adds to the originality of the AI art product, identified in the case law as required for satisfying AI copyright. Balancing copyright interest with Thomistic theory, an artist who wants to benefit the environment could provide a Creative Commons license to allow others to use the AI  product.[32]

Part 7.5 AI as an Intelligent Tool, Not the Sole Creator

While the AI creates the initial outputs, the human user remains the primary author whose choices furnish the artistic product with meaning, culture, and purpose. The work of art is much more about AI as a tool for creativity rather than a self-sufficient creator.

Part 7.6 The AI Creator -AI’s Decisions, and Why it Creates What It Does

AI algorithms, like human artists, have to decide on color, structure, and form. The difference is that this is done through statistical analysis as opposed to being done by emotional states. For instance, a generative adversarial network (GAN) can be trained to select colors and shapes that it believes a human would like.

The “why” in AI artistic production is typically traceable to the creators and users of the system. For instance, if an AI product creates an abstract form in dull color, one explanation can be that those were the preferences used during training, or the prompt provided by the user. As AI is not human, it cannot have an intention and therefore does not express meaning in a true sense. It does, however, illustrate the meaning embedded in the intentions of the people who are using it.

Part 8: Future Research

Future research must follow the development of AI and obtain results about how authorship and copyright will be treated by countries and regions of the world. This includes decisions about the status of copyright and other methods to protect digital artwork. Future research can revisit matters reviewed in this article as laws and regulations are implemented. Also, case law can be followed to determine how Courts and Tribunals in regions and countries deal with questions of AI copyright and other systems being used to record AI work produced.

Part 9: Conclusion

The question of who the author is for AI art products is complex. The article shows it involves the interests of computer program creators and users, AI specialists, regulatory officials, artists, and the public. When the person traditionally defined as an author is removed from the project, as occurs when using natural language processing and artificial intelligence, the question becomes important for these people, and other actors.

This article provides options for regions and countries to consider in implementing AI regulations. The future will show how humans will seek to balance proprietary rights and preservation of the environment, a co-existence shown to be achievable.

The status of AI regulation development has been reviewed for the European Union, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and China. The authors suggest future research on this question be conducted for other parts of the world, and that matters canvassed in this article be revisited as AI regulations develop.

Decisions made about the option of balancing proprietary interests with environmental sustainability for AI art production are shown to be important for the 21^st century. In achieving this balance, philosophical, biopsychological, and concerns for a sustainable future for people and the environment are paramount. Achieving the correct balance between these matters depends on decisions made by people in countries and regions of the world.

Bibliography and References

. AI Copyright Law: A New Era for AI Artists! 🎨 🤖, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyZXxLO7rSI.

‘AI Watch: Global Regulatory Tracker – European Union | White & Case LLP’, 16 July 2024. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-european-union.

‘AI Watch: Global Regulatory Tracker – France | White & Case LLP’. Accessed 15 October 2024. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-france.

Altunbıçak, Mihrican. ‘The Future of AI and Copyright: New Roadmaps’. Medium (blog), 16 February 2024. https://mihrican.medium.com/the-future-of-ai-and-copyright-new-roadmaps-aaafb9c6aa06.

‘Amazon.Com: The Art and Science of Personality Development: 9781462519958: McAdams, Dan P.: Books’. Accessed 28 January 2025. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Science-Personality-Development/dp/1462519954.

Anonymous. ‘Questions for Consideration on AI & the Commons’. Creative Commons, 24 July 2024. https://creativecommons.org/2024/07/24/preferencesignals/.

Bergman, Robert. ‘Conflict Analysis Needs Better Tools’. Mediate.com, 10 January 2023. https://mediate.com/conflict-analysis-needs-better-tools/.

———. ‘Will AI Replace Mediators?’ Mediate.com, 15 January 2024. https://mediate.com/will-ai-replace-mediators-and-neutrals/.

BLG. ‘Who Owns AI Generated Art? A Primer on Canadian Copyright and AI Artwork’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2023/02/who-owns-ai-generated-art-a-primer-on-canadian-copyright-and-ai-artwork.

Boden, Margaret A. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Boden.M.A. (2010). Creativity and Art:Three Roads to Surprise. Oxford University Press., n.d.

Box, Against the. ‘NO, We Don’t Want to Give up Copyright Protection’. Substack newsletter. Against The Box (blog), 8 February 2025. https://againstthebox.substack.com/p/time-to-have-your-say.

Built In. ‘AI and Copyright Law: What We Know’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright.

Built In. ‘AI and Copyright Law: What We Know’. Accessed 6 October 2024. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright.

‘Business Horizons, 62, 1, 2019, Pages 15-25).00 AC Juridica 52.Indb (Uria.Com)’, n.d.

Caldwell, Mackenzie. ‘What Is an “Author”?-Copyright Authorship of AI Art Through a Philosophical Lens’. Houston Law Review 61, no. 2 (11 December 2023): 411–42.

‘CARFAC-RAAV’s Recommendations Regarding AI and Visual Artists › CARFAC’. Accessed 9 October 2024. https://www.carfac.ca/news/2024/01/30/carfac-raavs-recommendations-regarding-ai-and-visual-artists/.

Cho, Winston. ‘Artists Lose First Round of Copyright Infringement Case Against AI Art Generators’. The Hollywood Reporter (blog), 30 October 2023. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/artists-copyright-infringement-case-ai-art-generators-1235632929/.

Copyright & Artificial Intelligence: Is Training AI a Fair Use?  Mark Lemley (Stanford), 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91sq4ua4Xmg.

‘Copyrights’. In The Free Dictionary. Accessed 6 October 2024. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Copyrights.

‘Creative Commons License’. In Wikipedia, 24 January 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons_license&oldid=1271480099.

‘Credo AI – EU AI Act’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.credo.ai/eu-ai-act?utm_term=eu%20ai%20act&utm_campaign=EU+AI+Act&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=9234903900&hsa_cam=20678021731&hsa_grp=161549066544&hsa_ad=692811890538&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-1632918723554&hsa_kw=eu%20ai%20act&hsa_mt=b&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwupGyBhBBEiwA0UcqaF3tqXNG06GRpRINjLHbArGlhews8Hqhd9cm3W_MHXJaa_GdbJPelRoCkMsQAvD_BwE.

CTVNews. ‘Can AI Be an Author? Federal Court Asked to Decide in New Copyright Case’, 13 July 2024. https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/can-ai-be-an-author-federal-court-asked-to-decide-in-new-copyright-case-1.6962705.

‘Elgammal. a. Et.al.(2017). “Can: Creative Adversarial Networks – Generatin ‘Art’ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms.”” Iccc Proceedings.’, n.d.

Elgammal, Ahmed, Bingchen Liu, Mohamed Elhoseiny, and Marian Mazzone. CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating ‘Art’ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms, 2017. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.07068.

Engel, G. L. ‘The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine’. Science (New York, N.Y.) 196, no. 4286 (8 April 1977): 129–36. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460.

‘Engel. G.L (1977), The Need for a New Medicalmodel:A Challenge for Biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136.’, n.d.

Episode 3: Who Owns Ai Art? Unpacking AI Copyright Law, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8-trsYahJQ.

‘Episode 26: Who Owns AI-Generated Creations (and Why You Should Care)’. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 1 March 2023. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/episode-26-who-owns-ai-generated-creations-and-why-you-should-care.

‘France Ai Generated Images and Copyright – Google Search’. Accessed 15 October 2024. https://www.google.com/search?q=France+Ai+generated+images+and+copyright&oq=France+Ai+generated+images+and+copyright&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCjIzOTI5ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

gazettebeckycoleman. ‘Is Art Generated by Artificial Intelligence Real Art?’ Harvard Gazette, 15 August 2023. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/is-art-generated-by-artificial-intelligence-real-art/.

‘Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.

Harvard Business Review. ‘Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem’. 7 April 2023. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem?utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=intlcontent_bussoc&utm_term=Non-Brand&tpcc=intlcontent_bussoc&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgJyyBhCGARIsAK8LVLNJByLrFAqMb1xlPxvBWvJvjH1buQXgALbopDlUOhdIpYb3Pur5xQQaAoVhEALw_wcB.

‘Houston Law Review (2022). “What Is an Author? Copyirght Authorship of AI Art through  a Philosophical Lens.”’, n.d.

‘Https://Arstechnica.Com/Tech-Policy/2024/08/Artists-Claim-Big-Win-in-Copyright-Suit-Fighting-Ai-Image-Generators/’, n.d.

‘Https://Legal-Dictionary.Thefreedictionary.Com/Copyrights’, n.d.

‘Https://Www.Etymonline.Com/Word/Auteur#:~:text=mid%2D14c.%2C%20auctor%2C,%2C%20progenitor%3B%20builder%2C%20founder%3B’, n.d.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/ad12aba2/can-ai-be-an-author-federal-court-asked-to-decide-in-new-copyright-case. ‘Can AI Be an Author? Federal Court Asked to Decide in New Copyright Case’. Accessed 9 October 2024. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/ad12aba2/can-ai-be-an-author-federal-court-asked-to-decide-in-new-copyright-case.

Https://Www.Youtube.Com/Watch?v=qxbpTyeDZp0, n.d.

International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaUzkerRSdM.

IRPJ = Intergovernmental Research and Policy Journal. ‘A New Story For The Talanoa Call For Action: Contributions By Non-State Actors – The Creative Arts And Mediation And Collaboration Professionals’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://irpj.euclid.int/articles/a-new-story-for-the-talanoa-call-for-action-contributions-by-non-state-actors-the-creative-arts-and-mediation-and-collaboration-professionals/.

Linearity blog. ‘What the Heck Is Happening with Copyright and AI Art?’, 21 March 2023. https://www.linearity.io/blog/ai-art-copyright/.

McAdams, D.P. (2015). The Art and Science of Personality Development. Guilford Press., n.d.

Mohan, Damini. ‘Equipping Mediators for AI-Driven Disputes’. Mediate.com, 8 May 2024. https://mediate.com/equipping-mediators-for-ai-driven-disputes/.

Panel: Users Are Creators — Is AI Blurring the Lines of Creativity in the Copyright Framework? 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNzvf1kIOwg.

Pixels and Principles: Ethics of AI Art | Melody Liu | TEDxNortheasternU, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zu2aRsh9N8.

Programme, United Nations Environment. Artificial Intelligence (AI) End-to-End: The Environmental Impact of the Full AI Lifecycle Needs to Be Comprehensively Assessed – Issue Note, 2024. https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/46288.

Ram, Ashwin, Linda Wills, Eric Domeshek, Nancy Nersessian, and Janet Kolodner. ‘Understanding the Creative Mind: A Review of Margaret Boden’s’. Artif. Intell. 79 (1 November 1995): 111–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(95)90027-6.

Robertson, Adi. ‘Who Owns AI Art?’ The Verge, 15 November 2023. https://www.theverge.com/23961021/ai-art-copyright-training-ownership-fair-use.

ScoreDetect Blog | Data & Content Authenticity Technology. ‘ScoreDetect Blog | Data & Content Authenticity Technology’, 7 January 2024. https://www.scoredetect.com/blog/posts/can-you-copyright-ai-art-legal-insights.

‘Search – Canadian Copyright Database – Canadian Intellectual Property Office – Intellectual Property and Copyright – Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’. Accessed 9 October 2024. https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/cpyrghts/dtls.do?fileNum=1188619&type=1&lang=eng.

Secretariat, Treasury Board of Canada. ‘Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence’, 30 May 2024. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/responsible-use-ai/guide-use-generative-ai.html.

‘So, Will Start Putting the Sources in Zotero’, n.d.

Stackelberg, Peter von. ‘AI Generated Art: What Can and Can’t Be Copyrighted’. AI Art Creators (blog), 13 October 2023. https://medium.com/ai-art-creators/ai-generated-art-what-can-and-cant-be-copyrighted-9f1d113fa114.

Starry, Rachel. ‘Guides: Copyright and Intellectual Property Toolkit: Definitions’. Accessed 6 October 2024. https://pitt.libguides.com/copyright/definitions.

The AI Revolution: Google’s Developers on the Future of Artificial Intelligence | 60 Minutes, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=880TBXMuzmk.

‘The Copyright Conundrum of AI Art – The Verge’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.theverge.com/23961021/ai-art-copyright-training-ownership-fair-use.

The Economist. ‘Does Generative Artificial Intelligence Infringe Copyright?’ Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/03/02/does-generative-artificial-intelligence-infringe-copyright?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18151738051&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwupGyBhBBEiwA0UcqaEZlVNl9XvY1Blfp58AplTQqXnYpQtoCcOeU4J0GS4ND8CZpbXu-URoCu60QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.

The Future of AI with GOOGLE CEO (Sundar Pichai), 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3M4bm2EveM.

‘The New York Times Sues OpenAI, Microsoft’. Accessed 15 October 2024. https://aibusiness.com/responsible-ai/the-new-york-times-sues-openai-microsoft.

The Problem with AI-Generated Art | Steven Zapata | TEDxBerkeley, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuogrLHyxQ.

‘The State of AI Regulations in 2024’. Accessed 9 October 2024. https://www.holisticai.com/papers/the-state-of-ai-regulations-in-2024.

The Verge. ‘Who Owns AI Art?’ Accessed 5 October 2024. https://volume.vox-cdn.com/embed/90ca171b8.

TheFreeDictionary.com. ‘Intellectual Property’. Accessed 6 October 2024. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual+Property.

‘United Nations Environment Programme. 2024. Artificial Intelligence (AI) End-to-End: The Environmental Impact of the Full AI Lifecycle Needs to Be Comprehensively Assessed – Issue Note. Https://Wedocs.Unep.Org/20.500.11822/46288’, n.d.

What Is Generative AI and How Does It Work? – The Turing Lectures with Mirella Lapata, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6R7Ym6Vy_I.

‘Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted | WIRED’. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-art-copyright-matthew-allen/

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

Euclid University

[1] ‘AI for Sustainable Development,’ UNDP, accessed 16 January 2025, https://www.undp.org/digital/ai.

[2] United Nations Environment Programme, Artificial Intelligence (AI) End-to-End: The Environmental Impact of the Full AI Lifecycle Needs to Be https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20201015STO89417/ai-rules-what-the-european-parliament-wantsComprehensively Assessed – Issue Note, 2024.

[3] ‘Https://Legal-Dictionary.Thefreedictionary.Com/Copyrights,’ n.d.

[4] ‘Https://Www.Etymonline.Com/Word/Auteur#:~:text=mid%2D14c.%2C%20auctor%2C,%2C%20progenitor%3B%20builder%2C%20founder%3B,’ n.d.

[5] ‘AI Watch: Global Regulatory Tracker – European Union | White & Case LLP,’ 18 October 2024, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-european-union.

[6] ‘A Guadamuz Journal of World Intellectual Property – Buscar Con Google,’ accessed 31 January 2025, https://www.google.com/search?q=A+Guadamuz+Journal+of+World+Intellectual+Property&oq=A+Guadamuz+Journal+of+World+Intellectual+Property&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhAMgYIAhBFGEDSAQo1MTY2MGowajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

[7] https://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2024/01/19/deciphering-french-copyright-law-in-the-age-of-ai-a-critical-analysis-of-recent-developments/

[8] ‘AI and Copyright Legal Landscape in France | Chambers Expert Focus,’ accessed 2 January 2025, https://chambers.com/legal-trends/copyright-on-ai-generated-work-in-france.

[9] ‘Legal Implications of the Use of Generative AI in Intellectual Property Matters.,’ accessed 12 January 2025, https://www.cecamagan.com/en/blog/legal-implications-use-generative-ai-intellectual-property.

[10] Ibid.

[11] ‘Legal Implications of the Use of Generative AI in Intellectual Property Matters.’

[12] AI Copyright Law: A New Era for AI Artists! 🎨 🤖, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyZXxLO7rSI.

[13] ‘Https://Arstechnica.Com/Tech-Policy/2024/08/Artists-Claim-Big-Win-in-Copyright-Suit-Fighting-Ai-Image-Generators/,’ n.d.

[14] ‘Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence – Canada.Ca,’ accessed 13 January 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/responsible-use-ai/guide-use-generative-ai.html.

[15] https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-v-sahni-ai-s-role-in-copyright-law.

[16] ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,’ GOV.UK, accessed 12 January 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence.

[17] Against the Box, ‘NO, We Don’t Want to Give up Copyright Protection,’ Substack newsletter, Against The Box (blog), 8 February 2025, https://againstthebox.substack.com/p/time-to-have-your-say.

[18] ‘(1) A Global Copyright Rule for AI-Generated Art: Spanning from the U.S. to China and the EU | LinkedIn’, accessed 14 January 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-copyright-rule-ai-generated-art-spanning-from-us-esposito-rnnwf/.

[19] Loke-Khoon Tan Wong James Lau, Harrods, ‘China: A Landmark Court Ruling on Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works,’ Global Litigation News, 8 May 2024, https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2024/05/08/china-a-landmark-court-ruling-on-copyright-protection-for-ai-generated-works/.

[20] Yanhui Liu et al., ‘Research on Digital Copyright Protection Based on the Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Network Technology,’ PeerJ Computer Science 7 (17 September 2021): e709, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.709.

[21] ‘Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works,’ accessed 15 January 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211.

[22] ‘AI and Blockchain: The New Power Couple,’ accessed 15 January 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2023/ai-blockchain-new-power-couple.html.

[23] Thomas Mary Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar: Crown/Archetype, 2011).

[24]Thomas Berry, ‘The Great Work of the New Millennium,’ n.d.

[25] Heather Eaton, ‘COSMOLOGICAL ETHICS? “THE GREAT WORK”’, Worldviews 5, no. 2/3 (2001): 157–69.

[26] Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, ‘The Return of the Commons – Copyright History as a Common Source,’ in Privilege and Property, ed. Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer, and Lionel Bently, 1st ed., Essays on the History of Copyright (Open Book Publishers, 2010), 347–58, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vjt9v.17.

[27] ‘(12) Thomistic Intellect, Neuroscience, and the Implications for AI | LinkedIn’, accessed 6 January 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thomistic-intellect-neuroscience-implications-ai-tim-williams-phd-btxjc/.

[28] G. L. Engel, ‘The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine,’ Science (New York, N.Y.) 196, no. 4286 (8 April 1977): 129–36, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460.

[29] Ahmed Elgammal et al., CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating ‘Art’ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms, 2017, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.07068.

[30] Margaret A. Boden, Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[31] Mackenzie Caldwell, ‘What Is an “Author”?-Copyright Authorship of AI Art Through a Philosophical Lens,’ Houston Law Review 61, no. 2 (11 December 2023): 411–42.

[32] Anonymous, ‘Questions for Consideration on AI & the Commons,’ Creative Commons, 24 July 2024, https://creativecommons.org/2024/07/24/preferencesignals/.