Remember the “monkey selfie” saga? A monkey named Naruto, a wildlife photographer, and a copyright lawsuit walk into a courtroom… and the judge rules that animals can’t own copyrights.
This bizarre case highlighted a fundamental question: who owns creative works?
Now, fast forward to the rise of generative AI, and the question gets even trickier. Can AI-created content be copyrighted? And what about human creators who use AI as a tool?
The “Monkey selfie” phenomenon
The story of the “monkey selfie” began in 2011 when British nature photographer David Slater traveled to Indonesia to photograph endangered Celebes crested macaques.
He licensed several images to the Caters News Agency, who distributed them along with a press release containing quotes from Slater. Several British publications, including The Telegraph and The Guardian, picked up the story, publishing the photos alongside articles that portrayed the images as self-portraits taken by the monkeys themselves.
These initial reports quoted Slater describing how the monkeys had seemingly taken the photos, with headlines like “Monkey takes selfie” and “Monkey steals camera to snap himself.”
However, Slater later clarified his account to Amateur Photographer, downplaying the monkey selfie narrative of the monkeys actively taking selfies. He explained that the camera was mounted on a tripod, and the primates were playing with a remote cable release while he managed other monkeys.
Despite this clarification, the initial narrative of the “monkey selfie” had already taken hold, setting the stage for a complex copyright dispute on the selfie saga that would unfold years later.
Human creativity remains king
Now, the US Copyright Office (USCO) has recently waded into this complex landscape emanating from the monkey selfie saga, issuing new guidelines that represent a significant shift in how we think about copyright in the age of artificial intelligence.
The core principle? Human creativity remains king.
The USCO has made it clear that while AI can be a powerful tool for creation, copyright protection hinges on the level of human contribution. If a human’s input significantly surpasses the AI’s role, the resulting work might be protected.
Think of it this way: AI can be the paint and the canvas, but it’s the human artist who wields the brush and brings the vision to life.
This stance was reinforced by a US District Judge’s ruling in August 2023, which denied copyright protection for a work created solely by AI, without any human involvement. The judge emphasized that human authorship is a bedrock requirement for copyright, even if the AI claims independent creation.
The USCO report further clarifies this point. While acknowledging the adaptability of existing copyright principles to new technologies, they stress that AI-generated outputs can only be protected if a human author’s expressive elements are discernible.
This could include situations where a human author creatively arranges or drastically alters AI outputs, going beyond simple instructions. As Shira Perlmutter, director of the US Copyright Office, puts it, “Where that creativity is utilized to express itself through AI systems, it remains protected.”
Another case: AI-generated poetry
The line, however, is blurry. The US research group RAND illustrates this with the example of AI-generated poetry. If a user simply instructs an AI to write a poem in the style of a famous poet, the AI, not the user, is responsible for the expressive elements.
Copyright protection, in this case, is unlikely. However, if the AI is used merely as a tool to help the creator express their own ideas, or if the author significantly modifies the AI’s output, protection might be possible.
A landmark case in this evolving landscape is the US automation business Invoke. They successfully registered an AI-generated image after demonstrating significant human input.
The CEO of Invoke made around 35 human modifications to the AI-generated artwork, proving that the final product’s creativity stemmed from human choices, arrangement, and artistic direction. The registration focused on the human author’s creative control, not the AI’s individual contributions.
The USCO acknowledges the challenges in distinguishing between AI assistance and full AI generation. While minor AI use, like spell-checking, doesn’t affect copyright eligibility, simple commands that generate entire works likely fall outside protection. The office admits the ambiguity in cases that lie between these two extremes and anticipates ongoing evolution in how the law is applied.
Varying perspectives on AI-generated content
Globally, different approaches are emerging.
The UK, for instance, grants copyright protection to computer-generated works even without a human author, defining the “author” as the person who made the arrangements for its creation. China, in contrast, has granted copyright protection to an AI-generated essay based on its originality and inventiveness, even though it was created with basic instructions. (Another case worth noting here is the DeepSeek dilemma, which pits national security against AI innovation, but that is a different story altogether).
The Philippines faces its own set of challenges in navigating this new reality. While current copyright laws protect literary, academic, scientific, and artistic works, they don’t specifically address AI-generated content. There’s reportedly growing support within the Intellectual Property Office for copyrighting AI-created works, even as traditional creators express concerns.
The core purpose of copyright — protecting creative works and fostering innovation — must remain central. As technology continues to advance, the law will need to adapt to safeguard the rights of human creators while acknowledging the growing role of AI in the creative process.
The monkey selfie may seem like a distant memory, but its underlying question of authorship continues to resonate in the age of AI. The legal landscape is shifting, and the future of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence is still being written.
