Comparative judicial treatment of AI-generated works in copyright law

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into creative processes is challenging established copyright norms, compelling courts to assess whether outputs produced with minimal or no human input can be protected under existing legal frameworks. While much scholarship addresses the legislative reforms that may be needed, judicial practice already offers valuable insight into how the law is adapting in real time. This presentation surveys selected case law from the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and China, highlighting how different legal traditions define authorship, measure originality, and interpret the scope of protection in the context of AI involvement.
While the discussion references relevant legal doctrines, such as the human authorship requirement and the originality standard, these serve only as background to better understand judicial reasoning. The presentation highlights recurring themes in the cases, including the evidentiary challenges of proving human creative contribution, the treatment of human–machine collaborations, and the strict application of anthropocentric definitions of authorship.
Through comparative analysis, the presentation demonstrates that while human creative agency remains central to copyright protection, some judicial decisions are beginning to recognize hybrid authorship scenarios where human contributions interact closely with algorithmic processes. The discussion concludes that, in the absence of targeted legislative reform, courts are incrementally shaping the contours of copyright in the generative AI era. This comparative case law perspective reveals both the adaptability and the limits of current legal frameworks in responding to technological change.