In a landmark decision highlighting the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright, the Prague City Court has set a precedent with far-reaching implications. This decision, one of the first of its kind in Europe, established that an image generated by the AI tool DALL-E could not be protected by copyright because it had not been created by a natural person.

Background to the case

The case involved an anonymous plaintiff who had used DALL-E to generate an image for his website, with the following instruction: “Creates a visual representation of two parties signing a business contract in a formal setting, such as a conference room or a law office in Prague. Only show your hands. After the image was created and published on the plaintiff’s website, it was copied by a local law firm and used on its own site, presumably to illustrate a post or message

The plaintiff filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming to be the author of the AI-generated image and seeking injunctive relief against the defendant.

Analysis of the decision

The court focused its analysis on the issue of authorship of the image and the possibility of an AI being recognized as the author of a copyrighted work under existing legal frameworks. The Czech Copyright Act, in particular Article 40, recognizes the rights of the author, including the ability to contest the unauthorized use of his works. However, section 5(1) of the Act specifies that the author is “the natural person who created the work”.

In this case, although the plaintiff argued that the image was created under his direction and was therefore the legitimate author of it, the court noted that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim beyond his own testimony. Consequently, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to establish authorship of the work, and therefore lacked an interest in pursuing this case.

In addition, the court found that the image, created by an artificial intelligence, did not meet the criteria set by Czech law to be considered the result of the creative activity of a natural person. As a result, the image could not claim copyright protection.

Comment

Given current legal standards, this decision is not surprising. Still, it highlights several key considerations for the future of AI in creative fields. Indeed, the court did not completely exclude the possibility that the applicant could be considered the perpetrator if he had presented sufficient evidence to that effect. This raises questions about the nature of the evidence required and the degree of human intervention required for creations produced by artificial intelligence to be eligible for copyright protection.

As AI technology continues to evolve and become more and more integrated into creative and business practices, this case sets a significant precedent. It highlights the need for artists, businesses and legal professionals to consider alternative forms of protection, such as contracts, in order to safeguard their interests.

The decision also serves as a reminder of the urgent need for legislators to revise copyright laws to better frame the realities of AI creation. This is particularly necessary in Europe, as the integration of AI in various sectors accelerates and requires clear legal frameworks that would protect both human and technological contributions.