Intellectual Property and Copyright in AI-Generated Art

According to copyright law, we should not recognize it about outputs created by non-human AI. However, in my opinion, if a human gives specific instructions to the AI or modifies, edits, and creatively refines its output, the human can be granted copyright protection to the extent of their creative contribution, and if someone is emotionally moved by a poem written by AI, I strongly argue that it deserves to be recognized as art.  

For example, there is an example that the Korean production company Nara Knowledge Information applied for copyright registration of a film created using generative AI on December 29, 2023, and it was registered as an “edited work.” While the film production company Nara film used image and movie made from Ai, it was protected only as a compilation work under the law. Likewise, copyright was granted only to the edited parts in which humans creatively intervened such as the selection, arrangement, and composition of images and videos, rather than the entire film itself.  

In united states, there is a case in which copyright was partially recognized for an AI-generated work has emerged. The graphic novel Zarya of the Dawn, which includes illustrations created by the artist using Midjourney, was initially approved for copyright registration in 2022 . However, after the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) learned that AI had been used in its creation, it reexamined the case and issued a final decision in 2023. As a result, the images created by AI themselves were not granted copyright protection; only the parts involving the author’s own creative contributions such as the writing of the text and the selection, arrangement, and adjustment of the images were recognized as protected. In other words, the AI-generated content itself was not subject to copyright protection, and only the creative components involving human participation were protected a ruling similar to South Korea’s AI Surobuin case.  

In another case, China has a case to recognize copyright for a work created by AI. The Beijing Internet Court ruled that a blogger who created a female image using Stable Diffusion owned the rights to it, recognizing creativity in the AI-generated image in 2023. Likewise, this became a case in which copyright was officially recognized for an AI-generated work, on the grounds that the AI-created image could be considered an original creative work—unlike in other countries. It is not important who created the work, but what kind of emotion and meaning it conveys. If Ai played a role of expanding human imagination as a tool, it can be recognized as one formation of art. As the technology advances, the definition of art is also changing, and the cooperation with human and Ai is opening a new era of creativity. However, the issue of copyright in AI-generated works is not merely a matter of legal rights, but it leads a question of how to define the creator and their responsibility. For example, if Ai learns from other artists’ work to create new results, an important issue arises as to how far the original creators’ rights should be recognized. Therefore, it is necessary to establish clear standards for the transparency of AI training data and the evaluation of human creators’ contributions.  

 Ultimately, I assert that AI generated results cannot fully replace human creativity. However, if humans actively engage with AI and infuse their emotions and intentions into its outputs, those works can indeed be recognized as art. In the future, new forms of art combining human emotion and AI’s analytical power will emerge, and copyright systems must evolve flexibly to adapt to these changes. So far, the general trend, particularly in the United States, has been not to grant full copyright protection to AI-generated works. However, as shown in the Chinese case, such exceptions suggest that discussions surrounding AI-generated copyrights will continue to grow. It will be worth observing how new cases arise and how they influence the direction of copyright law and guidelines. In the past, copyright was recognized only when humans performed every stage of the creative process. Now, however, collaboration between humans and AI should be regarded as a new form of creation. Just as photographers use cameras as tools, the role of artists who use AI as a creative instrument must also be redefined. We must address how humans and AI will collaborate and coexist creatively. I believe Ai should not replace human creativity but rather serve as a creative tool that complements and enhances what humans cannot do alone.