The Copyright Status of AI-Generated Content Under WIPO’s Intellectual Property Policies

1. Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have made significant progress in recent years, enabling the creation of content that can rival human creativity in various fields, including art, music, literature, and software development. This advancement raises important discussions in intellectual property (IP) law, particularly concerning the copyright status of AI-generated works. Traditional copyright law has been centered around human creativity, leading to uncertainty regarding the legal status of AI-generated content. This paper examines the copyright status of AI-generated works within the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), analyzing whether such works can be protected under international intellectual property law.

2. Existing Legal Framework

2.1. Copyright Definition Under WIPO and International Intellectual Property Law

Copyright is a legal mechanism that grants exclusive rights to individuals who create original intellectual works. WIPO's fundamental principles include protecting authors, serving the public interest, and fostering creative activities. The key international instruments governing copyright include:

• The Berne Convention (1886)

• The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT, 1996)

• The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994)

These frameworks generally assume that copyright protection applies to works created by human authors.

2.2. The Legal Status of AI-Generated Content

The legal recognition of AI-generated works under copyright law remains highly debated. Most legal systems associate copyright protection with human creativity, making it difficult for AI to be considered an author. However, some jurisdictions (such as the United Kingdom) have introduced specific legal provisions addressing the ownership of AI-generated content.

3. Discussion and Challenges

3.1. The “Human Creativity” Criterion and AI

Copyright law traditionally presupposes that creative processes are linked to human intellectual effort. The extent to which AI-generated works meet this criterion is a key debate. For instance, there is a distinction between works where an artist uses AI as a tool and those created autonomously by AI systems.

3.2. Who Owns AI-Generated Works?

Different perspectives exist regarding the ownership of AI-generated works:

• The developer or company that created the AI software?

• The user operating the AI system to produce content?

• The AI itself? (Current legal systems generally do not recognize AI as a legal entity capable of holding copyrights.)

WIPO has emphasized the need for international consensus on this issue and is actively consulting with member states.

3.3. WIPO’s Current Policies and Member States' Approaches

WIPO has launched multiple initiatives addressing AI and intellectual property. In 2020, the “WIPO Conversation on AI and IP” series was introduced to examine whether AI-generated content should be protected under copyright. However, member states have differing views on the issue.

4. Comparative Analysis: Different National Approaches

4.1. European Union (EU)

EU law does not currently recognize AI-generated works as eligible for copyright protection, maintaining the requirement of human creativity. The European Parliament has published reports assessing the impact of AI on IP rights.

4.2. United States (US)

The US Copyright Office (USCO) has ruled that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted. In the Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) case, the court concluded that AI-generated content does not meet the human authorship requirement.

4.3. China

China has shown a more flexible approach toward protecting AI-generated content. In 2020, a Chinese court ruled that an AI-generated article could receive copyright protection under certain conditions.

5. Proposed Solutions and Future Perspectives

5.1. Potential Regulatory Approaches by WIPO

WIPO could develop a regulatory framework to address the copyright status of AI-generated works. Potential solutions include:

• Maintaining the human authorship requirement while recognizing AI as a tool.

• Granting copyright protection to AI-generated works under specific conditions.

• Creating a new category of intellectual property rights, such as "AI copyright."

5.2. Long-Term Impacts of AI on Intellectual Property Rights

As AI continues to evolve, copyright laws may need to become more flexible to accommodate new creative processes. The increasing adoption of AI in artistic, literary, and musical fields could drive legal reforms in IP law.

6. Conclusion

The copyright status of AI-generated content remains a major legal uncertainty in international law. WIPO is in the process of developing a global framework to address the relationship between AI and intellectual property. While national approaches vary, there is no international consensus yet on whether AI-generated works can be protected and, if so, who should be recognized as their owner. Moving forward, WIPO and other international organizations are expected to establish clearer legal frameworks for addressing these challenges.