Can AI Be Considered an Author? Federal Court to Address Copyright Concerns

The Federal Court of Canada is poised to determine whether only human creators can be recognized as authors under Canadian copyright law, excluding artificial intelligence from this designation.

This case marks the first legal challenge in Canada examining how the Copyright Act applies to content generated by AI technologies like ChatGPT, including text, images, and videos.

David Fewer, the director and general counsel at the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, argues that the clinic’s goal is to establish a clear legal precedent that only humans are entitled to authorship rights under copyright law.

With the growing volume of AI-generated content, Fewer emphasizes the urgency of setting these rules now.

“We’re at a pivotal moment where AI-generated content is starting to flood our lives,” he said. “Before this content becomes commercially prevalent, it’s crucial to have clear guidelines in place.”

Fewer contends that copyright law confers significant rights on human authors, and it’s vital that these rights are not extended to entities that are not human and do not benefit from the incentives copyright provides.

The case challenges a copyright registration attempted two years ago by Ankit Sahni, an intellectual property lawyer from India. Sahni used AI to merge his own sunset photograph with Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night, creating an image he titled “Suryast.”

Sahni sought to register this AI-combined image in copyright registries globally. While the U.S. Copyright Review Board rejected his application in December, the status of “Suryast” remains unclear in India.

According to the application, Canada’s Intellectual Property Office, which grants copyright registrations quickly and without verification, approved “Suryast” in 2021.

An Innovation Canada spokesperson, overseeing the intellectual property office, indicated that authorship disputes are resolved by the courts.

“If someone believes a work was improperly registered under the Copyright Act, they can apply to the Federal Court to have the registration amended or removed if warranted,” the spokesperson stated, adding that the office does not take a stance on such matters.

The law firm associated with Sahni did not respond to a request for comment before the deadline.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s decision to register an AI-authored work has garnered attention, positioning Canada as one of the few places globally recognizing AI as an author, the application notes.

This issue is currently being reviewed by the federal government, which is considering how the Copyright Act should address artificial intelligence. The government’s recent consultation on AI and copyright explored various options, including limiting copyright protection to human-created works or extending similar protections to AI-generated content.

Canadian creators and publishers have expressed concerns about the unauthorized use of their works to train AI systems, a problem that has prompted action in the U.S. but has not yet been addressed in Canadian courts.

Fewer finds this hesitancy surprising, suggesting that major stakeholders in Canada might be waiting to see if legislative changes will be made or are considering alternative strategies like licensing agreements.