While the Union Congress continues its debate to reach consensus on the drafting of desired legislation to regulate and clarify legislative treatment in all areas of Artificial Intelligence, the Specialized Intellectual Property Chamber has already issued the first ruling against Artificial Intelligence, in which the plaintiff sought recognition of copyright in favor of Artificial Intelligence programs.
An individual submitted a request to the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) for the registration of works created with the LEONARDO program, an Artificial Intelligence platform specializing in the generation of digital art and graphics.
LEONARDO allows users to generate graphic art from text descriptions and is primarily aimed at designers, digital artists, and content creators, assisting them in quickly creating concepts, characters, environments, and other visual assets.
Upon INDAUTOR’s refusal, the applicant filed an annulment lawsuit with the Specialized Chamber, arguing, among the main points on behalf of LEONARDO that the denial of copyright recognition to the platform is discriminatory, as it only protects works created by natural persons and not by companies.
The Judgment of the Specialized Chamber
The Specialized Chamber ruled against the copyright recognition of LEONARDO, with the judgment based on the lack of artistic and aesthetic perception in Artificial Intelligence, as such qualities can only be perceived through human senses.
Another interesting argument was based on the principle of legality, with the plaintiff arguing that ‘what is not prohibited is permitted.’ However, part of this same principle holds that ‘the authority is only empowered to order what the law permits,’ leading the Chamber to again dismiss the claim in favor of AI.
Considerations Regarding the Ruling Against Artificial Intelligence
I believe that the cornerstone argument lies in determining whether Artificial Intelligence is a creation tool for the user (similar to how a camera is for a photographic artist), or if the works are truly created by Artificial Intelligence itself.
The ‘generative’ characteristic of some Artificial Intelligence platforms is key, involving the ability to produce original results that go beyond merely copying, imitating, or repeating what the user shares, as is the case with Chat GPT. Here, we are dealing with original works that, however, are not recognized under Mexican legislation.
Regardless of the Specialized Chamber’s decision not to recognize copyright, the lawsuit challenges the moral rights, rather than the economic rights, of the works, which could prove even more interesting. Under the literal interpretation of the provision governing commissioned works in the Federal Copyright Law, moral rights could be recognized while the users of Artificial Intelligence platforms could still hold the economic rights to works created with generative AI.
There is no gap in the Federal Copyright Law.
The absence of legislation should not be considered a gap in which the authority must allow what is not specifically regulated, beginning with the fact that copyright does not require registration for protection; it is sufficient for it to be externally expressed in a physical medium, such as an electronic document, for it to be recognized.
Thus, although the copyright of works created by generative artificial intelligence is currently not recognized, if it were to be in the future—whether through a change in legal interpretation or the enactment of new laws, as in countries that have recognized hybrid rights shared between AI and the user—these works would not be left without an author.
Who owns the rights to works created by generative AI?
We can assert that works created by Generative Artificial Intelligence are not in the public domain, nor are they works that users can freely use at their discretion. The fact that these works are not currently recognized as copyrighted does not exempt the user from the terms and conditions set forth by the companies managing these platforms.
The terms and conditions function as an adhesion contract, meaning they are agreements between the user and the platform that are not open to negotiation; for the platform, it is a condition that the user agrees to comply with them.
Recognized Copyrights That Are Non-Artistic
Current legislation recognizes copyright for works that do not require the author’s artistic sense for recognition, such as: a) Software; b) Databases; Technical documents and manuals; c) Simple photographs; d) Industrial designs and architectural plans; e) Scientific works; f) Compilations and anthologies; and g) Translations.
Indeed, not all copyrights depend on the author’s artistic sense, and this assertion could be considered against the idea that rights should be recognized only for works created by humans.
In the case of LEONARDO, as the judgment rightly states, these are indeed artistic works; therefore, the human element is essential, as has been affirmed in previous rulings by the same Circuit Collegiate Court.
The Significance of the Ruling Against Artificial Intelligence
The LEONARDO debate may possibly extend to an appeal to be resolved by the Circuit Collegiate Court; however, I consider the Specialized Chamber’s ruling to be of great significance. Although the effects of the judgment apply only to the parties involved, this decision sets a precedent for the authority’s stance in light of the significant lack of legislation on Artificial Intelligence.
The Specialized Chamber’s ruling is accurate, as the Federal Copyright Law in Mexico is explicit in recognizing only works that are human creations. Regardless of the legislator’s recognition of rights that may not necessarily be artistic, this particular case concerns artistic works—namely, graphic works—and not other non-artistic rights.
Click on the following link to read the full ruling against Artificial Intelligence issued by the Specialized Intellectual Property Chamber.
More articles from the firm on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright here:
Copyright
