Human Involvement in Copyright Creation: A Comparative Analysis of US and UK Laws in the Age of AI

Copyright law plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of creators and ensuring their works are used appropriately. Yet, the rules regarding human participation in copyright creation differ sharply between the United States and the United Kingdom. Here, we examine these differences, highlighting how each country addresses authorship and the role of human involvement in the copyright process.

Understanding Copyright in the US

In the United States, copyright law is mainly governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. Copyright protection is granted automatically to original works of authorship fixed in a tangible format. This means that once a creator puts their work on paper, canvas, or in a digital file, they immediately own the copyright for that work.

A crucial feature of US copyright law is the requirement for "human authorship." This means that the work must originate from a human being, and therefore excludes works that are solely generated by machines or artificial intelligence. For instance, when artist Anna is creating a piece of digital art, her effort and creativity ensure that she holds the copyright. However, if a computer program generates an image without any human input, that work arguably cannot be copyrighted under US law.

The US legal landscape has also provided case studies illustrating the role of human involvement. A notable example is the Supreme Court case, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, where it was determined that mere facts (a telephone directory listing of names and numbers) cannot be copyrighted. This case emphasizes that originality and human creativity are fundamental to securing copyright protection.

The Role of Human Involvement in UK Copyright Law

On the other hand, UK copyright law operates under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, which grants copyright protection automatically upon the creation of an original work. However, UK law offers a different take on authorship and human involvement.

UK law takes into account works created by non-human entities, such as those generated by computers. If a computer creates a work without human intervention, the person who arranged for its creation is considered the author. This flexibility is highlighted in a recent UK court ruling of Nova Productions Ltd. v Mazooma Games Ltd., which confirmed copyright protection for computer-generated works, showcasing a more adaptable approach compared to the US. It should be emphasised that computer-generated works in the UK enjoy a lesser duration of protection of 50 years from the end of the year created (versus a duration of generally 70 years after the death of the creator, for standard copyright works not generated by AI).

Key Differences in Human Involvement Requirements

The main distinction between US and UK copyright law is how non-human authorship is treated. The US has a strict requirement for human authorship, meaning that any work generated without human involvement is not eligible for copyright protection. This creates a clear line that reinforces the significance of human creativity.

In contrast, UK copyright law adopts a broader definition of authorship. By allowing computer-generated works to receive copyright protection — provided that a human has facilitated their creation — the UK reflects a more dynamic view of creativity. This may ultimately lead to a far greater proportion of UK creators using AI tools in their work, when compared to their US counterparts.

Implications for Creators and Innovators

The differences between US and UK copyright law have important implications for creators and innovators. In the US, artists and authors must ensure their works stem from genuine human effort to obtain copyright protection. This requirement can be challenging in an age where AI and automated systems can generate vast amounts of content, leaving creators concerned about copyright infringement.

In the UK, creators could find more avenues for copyright protection, even when their works involve significant technological elements. For instance, a software developer working on AI-generated art can still claim ownership as long as they have made the necessary arrangements. This adaptability can foster innovation, enabling creators to harness technology without the anxiety of losing their copyright rights.

Final Thoughts

This comparison of human involvement in copyright rules of the US and UK, reveals two contrasting frameworks for authorship and creativity. While the US maintains strict human authorship requirements, the UK provides a more flexible system that embraces technology and collaboration, albeit still requiring a minimum level of human involvement in the chain of creation.

As the creative landscape evolves, understanding these variations is crucial for creators, innovators, and legal professionals. By navigating the complexities of copyright law in both countries, individuals can better protect their creations and adapt to the changing nature of authorship in today's digital environment.

In the age of AI, could we end up with two classes of copyright works, a premium offering created only by humans and without any involvement of AI, and a second class, created by AI technologies?

With technology increasingly influencing creativity, the conversation surrounding human involvement in copyright creation remains essential. As both legal systems evolve to address new challenges, the ongoing balance between protecting creators' rights and encouraging innovation will continue to shape copyright law's future.

Disclaimer: Content is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed.