Copyright Protection in the Age of Generative AI: Authorship, Originality and the Limits of Existing Doctrine

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence has transformed the production of literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual content by enabling users to create sophisticated outputs through relatively limited human intervention. The emergence of such systems has placed traditional copyright concepts, particularly authorship and originality, under increasing pressure. This article examines whether existing copyright doctrines are sufficiently capable of addressing works produced through interactions between human users and generative artificial intelligence. The analysis focuses on the legal significance of human creative contribution and the extent to which prompts, selection, modification, arrangement, and post-generation editing may satisfy established standards of authorship. The article distinguishes between entirely machine-generated outputs and works in which artificial intelligence operates as a sophisticated creative instrument under meaningful human direction. It argues that treating all AI-assisted works uniformly risks producing both excessive protection and inadequate recognition of genuine human creativity. The article further evaluates the uncertainty surrounding the ownership of AI-generated outputs and considers contractual arrangements between users and AI service providers. Particular attention is given to the increasing use of training datasets containing copyrighted material and the resulting tension between technological development, copyright exclusivity, and access to knowledge. Comparative perspectives from major copyright jurisdictions demonstrate the absence of a consistent international approach and reveal substantial differences concerning originality and human authorship. The article proposes a functional approach under which copyright protection should depend upon demonstrable human creative choices rather than the mere use of artificial intelligence. Such an approach would preserve the central objectives of copyright while allowing technological tools to develop without unnecessarily expanding monopolistic rights. The article concludes that copyright law should evolve through carefully defined standards for human contribution rather than through the creation of an entirely separate legal category for machine-generated works.