According to a U.S. court, artificial intelligence is not the author of a work, just as a camera or an animal is not – we have written about this before. Now we will look at the first Czech court ruling.
Summary of the court ruling
Under case number 10 C 13/2023-16, the Municipal Court in Prague issued a decision concerning a claim for the determination of authorship of graphics created using artificial intelligence. The plaintiff sought recognition of his authorship on the basis of the specific prompt he had given to the artificial intelligence. He also sought the removal of, and an injunction against, the defendant's interference with his copyright, the defendant having allegedly published the graphics on its website without the plaintiff's consent. The specific prompt read: "create a visual depiction of two parties signing a business contract in a formal setting, for example in a conference room or in the office of a law firm in Prague. Show only the hands."
The court, however, dismissed the claim on several grounds. The first was that artificial intelligence cannot itself be an author, since under the Copyright Act only a natural person can hold authorship. In the proceedings, the plaintiff claimed to be the author of the image on the basis of his specific prompt, but he did not substantiate this with sufficient evidence. My note: even if he had substantiated it, the court would have dismissed the claim on the second ground.
The court further stated that an image created by artificial intelligence does not constitute a copyrighted work under Section 2 of the Copyright Act, because it does not meet the conceptual characteristics of a copyrighted work as a unique result of the creative activity of a natural person. The court emphasized that the prompt for the artificial intelligence can itself be regarded as the subject matter or idea of the work, which on its own is not a copyrighted work.
On these grounds, the court found the claim to be unfounded and dismissed it in its entirety. You can read the full court ruling HERE.
An interesting detail is that the generated work was borrowed from the plaintiff by a Prague law firm, which was also the defendant. They no longer have the generated image on their website, so I could not share it with you, and so I prompted a new one for you – and yes, I officially declare that I do not consider myself the author of this image.
What can we take away from the ruling?
It turns out that giving a prompt to an AI is more like handing a recipe to a chef – even if you provided the ingredients, the finished dish is not your work. The AI user is more of a kitchen assistant than the actual chef. What will matter is what they do with the dish next…
Those who have followed me for a while know that I hold the view that if we wanted these images to be protected, the solution would be to adopt new legislation that responds to such works. Until then, however, we have to make do with what we have and learn to swim in the wild waters of AI.
This means that where there is no copyright, I cannot grant licenses – so consider whether your further work with the generated image is creative enough for you to be regarded as the author of the (creatively!) modified image. As the author of a (merely) generated image, you cannot consider yourself an author within the meaning of this ruling. Bear in mind, too, that responsibility for use lies with the person who uses the work. If you "sell" something to your client with a promise of a license, and it later turns out that you did not enjoy copyright protection, you will at the very least lose the client, and it may cost you dearly.
Also read the terms of use of the individual generators. Sometimes you will find legal curiosities there – for example, you may discover that their general terms do not even contemplate the kinds of services they provide.
For important marketing projects and campaigns, it is advisable to use the good old techniques – a camera, a brush or a graphics pen – or at least to play creatively with the generated image.
Keep in mind that these conclusions do not apply only to images; they can undoubtedly be extended to music, literary works, translations and other creative works as well.
