AI and Authorship

Review of the article by Johannes Fritz (2025) ‘Understanding authorship in Artificial Intelligence-assisted works’ 

The article on ‘Understanding authorship in Artificial Intelligence-assisted works’  by Johannes Fritz (2025), explores the implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on authorship within the framework of European copyright law. It discusses the challenges arising from AI-generated works, particularly the ambiguity surrounding authorship and the attribution of rights. Fritz analyses existing case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and national courts to discern criteria for determining authorship in AI-assisted creations.

Central to the discussion is a proposed four-step test that aims to evaluate the presence and attribution of authorship in AI-generated works. The first step identifies the human contributors involved in the creation process, distinguishing between developers and users. The second step categorizes the type of AI system employed, ranging from partially to fully autonomous systems. The third step assesses whether those involved exercised subjective judgment and creative choices in the composition of the work. Finally, the fourth step examines the control exerted over the execution of the final output.

Fritz concludes that while works created through highly autonomous AI systems cannot be attributed to human authors due to insufficient control and creative input, edited outputs that embody originality can be attributed to users. This proposed framework promotes legal clarity and serves to navigate the evolving landscape of AI and copyright law, suggesting a need for ongoing legal adaptation as technology progresses.

Despite Fritz’s attempt to provide a framework, his theories fall short in the absence of the inclusion of the original creators of the work used by the developers. There is no real discussion about authorship without the inclusion of this group of people. Excluding them makes an attempt to define authorship easier for writers such as Fritz to address as the complications around copyright can be ignored but they are present and thus make this discussion incomplete.

Additionally Fritz’s arguments conclude without a clear definition of authorship leaving room for interpretation, debate and differing applications. As Fritz, himself has stated this is a guide but can be developed further and interpreted in light of new developments or situations.

Thus in relation to authorship in the use of AI assisted systems, a definite conclusion is yet to be presented.

Reference

Understanding authorship in Artificial Intelligence-assisted works Open Access

Johannes Fritz

Author Notes

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 20, Issue 5, May 2025, Pages 354–364, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae119