On 18 March 2025, a U.S. appeals court delivered the most definitive statement yet on the legal status of art created entirely by artificial intelligence: no human author, no copyright. The ruling, which affirmed earlier decisions by the Copyright Office and a district court, establishes a precedent that could reshape how creative work is produced, exhibited and monetised in the age of generative tools. Reuters
Why the case matters
Copyright is the backbone of the creative economy. It grants authors exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and licence their work. Without that protection, revenue models—from gallery sales to digital licensing—start to wobble. By refusing to recognise AI-only creations, the court effectively places them in the public domain. Anyone can remix, print or sell the image without paying a royalty.
Winners and losers
Artists and illustrators stand to gain a stronger negotiating position. If a platform wants exclusive content, it must involve verifiable human input—sketches, textual prompts refined by hand, post-processing decisions—anything that crosses the low but vital threshold of originality.
Tech companies face higher compliance costs. Tools marketed as “fully autonomous” now offer limited IP value to clients. Expect a surge in features that capture process metadata to prove human collaboration.
Collectors and museums receive a caution flag. Works sourced from purely algorithmic systems may lack the scarcity that underpins market value. Provenance records will need to show human agency to justify long-term investment.
Grey areas ahead
The opinion leaves room for hybrid authorship, where a person guides an AI and curates the output. How many prompt iterations equal creativity? Courts will decide case-by-case, but best practice is emerging: document your workflow, save drafts, and keep timestamps. That evidence could be the difference between a protected artwork and a public-domain curiosity.
Global ripple effects
While the U.S. sets a persuasive benchmark, jurisdictions such as the EU and Japan are drafting their own AI-copyright frameworks. Platforms operating internationally must navigate a patchwork of rules. Harmonisation will take years, but today’s verdict signals a trend: human contribution remains the legal anchor.
What creators can do now
-
Lean into transparency: Share your process openly—audiences love behind-the-scenes glimpses, and it proves authorship.
-
Use AI as a co-pilot, not a ghost writer: Treat the model like a brush or a camera, not a replacement for vision.
-
Collect your own evidence: Version-control software, blockchain stamps, even simple screenshots can protect your claim.
The bottom line
The court didn’t shut the door on AI creativity; it reminded us that culture is a human contract. As generative models become ubiquitous, the platforms that thrive will be those that keep people—artists, editors, viewers—at the centre of the loop. Innovation continues, but authorship, it seems, is still spelled with a human “I.”
Pic: Proyecto Análogo
