Judicial Responses to AI-Generated Works: A Comparative Case Law Analysis on Copyright

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly contributes to the creation of original content, legal systems are under pressure to determine whether and how such outputs can be protected by copyright. While much of the academic debate focuses on future legislative reforms, courts and existing legal frameworks are already being tested by real disputes. This paper examines how different jurisdictions, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and China, approach the copyright protection of AI-generated works, both at the level of underlying legal doctrine and through judicial interpretation. The first part of the paper outlines the key principles of copyright law in each system, including definitions of authorship, standards of originality, and relevant exceptions or limitations that may apply to AI training and output. The second part shifts to case law, examining how courts have applied or challenged these principles when addressing AI-generated work. In doing so, the paper focuses on three core legal issues: whether AI-generated works can meet originality thresholds, how authorship and ownership are assigned, and how the expression–idea dichotomy is interpreted in this context. It is within this judicial context that the present study situates its analysis, using case law as the primary lens to examine how legal systems are grappling with the growing presence of AI in creative processes. By comparing these legal systems and judicial approaches, the paper demonstrates that while human authorship remains a consistent requirement, some courts have begun to accommodate more nuanced forms of human–machine collaboration. Ultimately, the study argues that in the absence of clear legislative reform, courts are actively shaping the emerging boundaries of copyright in the age of generative AI. In addition, this paper contributes to the growing literature on AI and copyright by providing a doctrinal analysis grounded in case law, revealing not only how courts are applying traditional concepts to new technologies, but also where doctrinal tensions are beginning to emerge.