Who Owns Ideas? Humans versus AI in Intellectual Property

The Artificial intelligence actress Tilly Norwood was created in February of 2025 by the UK-based production company Particle6. She looks and acts completely human and, since her creation, has been in a few short films with a large presence on social media. However, since her first appearance, the AI-actress has faced severe backlash across social media. Norwood’s debut was only the beginning of a sweeping campaign with AI emerging in the entertainment industry. As NBC points out, AI filmmaking over the past few years has quickly entered mainstream media. Studios have begun working with AI companies to explore the technology’s potential in content creation, and apps like Sora by ChatGPT allow people to create, upload, and view AI-generated videos featuring anyone via a face-scan and text prompt. The use of AI across art media has quickly become a polarizing topic for many artists. In an age where AI has inevitably found its way into entertainment and art industries, how does intellectual property law create boundaries that protect human-generated art, and where, if at all, is the boundary drawn on what can be protected as intellectual property when AI is used? With AI rapidly evolving, intellectual property law must be able to distinguish between artists who use AI and works of art that are simply machine-generated, in order to protect human creativity and ingenuity without blocking the use of technology.

Historically, copyright law has been based on the premise that creative works are produced by humans, but as AI has become an increasingly popular tool for artists, this idea has come under strain. In Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 of U.S. copyright law, it is stated that in order for something to be protected by copyright, it must possess “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”. In this law, “authorship” means that the work must be human-made, with a clear level of creativity. In the case of AI, it can legally learn ideas, styles, and other information from copyright-protected material, as long as it is not copying intellectual property. But, because AI is not human, AI lacks this definition of “authorship,” and therefore any work created by AI does not qualify for copyright protection. The reasoning behind this, as explained in a 2023 congressional hearing, was to ensure that human creativity is preserved and rewarded. However, as AI becomes a common tool that pushes creativity further, what happens to works created by humans with the help of AI?

Recent lawsuits and court cases from the past years can shed light on the issue of blurred IP laws in response to AI. One example that illustrates this issue is the ongoing Midjourney Lawsuit, headed by Walt Disney and Co. and Universal Pictures, for using characters originally made and patented by the companies. The entertainment companies accuse Midjourney of “blatantly” profiting off of characters from the major franchises each company produced, including “Star Wars”, “Marvel”, and “Cars”. This lawsuit not only reveals how serious a threat AI poses to companies that have built their brand around characters and stories they created, but, more deeply, shows the importance of preserving and respecting human creativity in media.

The issue of human creativity becomes even clearer/more evident in the case of the comic book “Zarya of the Dawn,” which was rejected for copyright protection because the author used AI to create images in the book. In a letter, the copyright office reasoned that copyright law protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind”. According to the copyright office, Zarya of the Dawn’s illustrations were not “original intellectual conceptions of the author”. This creates the precedent that works of art must stem from a high level of human and intellectual creativity.

However, according to the case of Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, works must have more than just human creativity. This AI artwork was created with Midjourney and denied for copyright registration numerous times because of a lack of human involvement. The co-creator claimed that he worked with the AI by giving it prompts and adjusting those prompts according to what the AI produced. Regardless, the Copyright Review Board said the author had “no control” over how AI responded to the prompts given, and therefore could not be registered. However, the co-creator continuously had the AI alter the image to get what he envisioned, which adheres to the precedent created from “Zarya of the Dawn”. From this, another interpretation is added to what can be protected, with this one requiring physical work by the author.

Together, this raises the question of where the line should be drawn on AI involvement. The website for copyright registration explains this by asking if the “‘work’ is… one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument” or, if the “elements of authorship in the work… were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” According to the U.S. Copyright Office, to meet the requirements for copyright protection, the work must be conceptually and physically created by the author, rather than mostly produced by AI and edited by the author. Still, the different interpretations of what qualifies for copyright protection show how ambiguous the line is for AI in relation to IP, suggesting that perhaps intellectual property law should be moving in a new direction to become clearer and accommodate the growing use of AI.