Abstract

This research examines the fundamental tensions between artificial intelligence technologies capable of generating sophisticated creative content and traditional intellectual property frameworks predicated on human authorship. Through rigorous comparative analysis of legal approaches across India, the European Union, United States, and Japan, we identify significant jurisdictional inconsistencies in applying creativity thresholds to AI-generated works. Our examination of 87 relevant judicial decisions reveals a 34% increase in recognition of hybrid authorship models that acknowledge both human and algorithmic contributions, yet 72% of examined legal frameworks lack clear provisions for works created with minimal human intervention. The study demonstrates that neither purely creator-centric nor investor-centric attribution models adequately address the unique nature of AI-generated content across creative domains. We observe an emerging judicial trend toward graduated forms of protection based on the degree of meaningful human involvement throughout the creative process. To address these critical gaps, we recommend implementing a “contributory value framework” that quantifies human creative input across the AI development spectrum, developing sui generis protection for wholly autonomous AI creations, and establishing proportional rights allocation systems that balance innovation incentives with recognition of machine contribution. This research provides actionable guidance for policymakers, courts, and AI developers navigating the evolving intersection of technological innovation and the human-centric foundations of intellectual property law.

• 1.   Bridy, A. (2016). Coding creativity: Copyright and the artificially intelligent, Stanford Technology Law Review, 21(1), 1–28.
• 2.   Burylo, M. (2022). Copyright and artificial intelligence: The originality requirement in the age of AI-generated works. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 17(2), 87–95.
• 3.   Dimitrova, S. (2023). Human authorship and AI-generated works: Navigating copyright’s originality threshold. European Intellectual Property Review, 45(5), 241–250.
• 4.   Geiger, C. (2024). The human touch: Originality and authorship in AI-assisted creations. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(1), 13–30. Rahul Kailas Bharati. Intellectual Property Rights in AI-Generated Creative Works: Human Authorship in Automated Production.92 Indian Journal of Law and Human Behavior Indian Journal of Law and Human Behavior / Volume 11 Number 2 / July – December 2025
• 5.   Horzyk, A. (2023). Copyright protection for AI-generated works: The role of human input. Computer Law & Security Review, 49, 105672.
• 6.   Iaia, V. (2022). Zarya of the Dawn: Copyright Office guidance on AI-generated images. Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 69(4), 501–515.
• 7.   Kasap, E. (2021). Human authorship in the age of artificial intelligence: Legal challenges and policy solutions. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2021(3), 220–239.
• 8.   Kibirige, F. (2024). Copyright, creativity, and AI: Rethinking authorship in the digital era. Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2024(1), 77–98.
• 9.   Lucchi, N. (2024). Training AI with copyrighted data: Legal frameworks and fair use debates. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 32(1), 1–19.
• 10.   Ploman, E., & Hamilton, L. (2024). Copyright law’s human authorship requirement and AI-generated works. Intellectual Property Law Journal, 29(2), 145–160.
• 11.   Risi, S., & Togelius, J. (2020). Human– AI collaboration in creative content generation. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(7), 361–363.
• 12.   Samuelson, P. (2023). Licensing and liability: Copyright issues in AI training datasets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 38(2), 415–442.
• 13.   Sobel, L. (2021). Copyright infringement and AI training data: Emerging legal standards. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 44(3), 301–323.
• 14.   Torrance, A. W., & Tomlinson, J. (2023). Fair use and AI: Rethinking copyright doctrines for machine learning. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 25(4), 911–940.
• 15.   Wan, J., & Lu, Y. (2021). Curatorial authorship: Human selection in AI-generated art. Art, Law & Society, 12(2), 95–110.
• 16.   U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office.
• 17.   Andersen et al. v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv- 00201-WHO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024).
• 18.   Allen v. U.S. Copyright Office, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023).
• 19.   Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
• 20.   Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008).