The Possibility of Considering Generative Artificial Intelligence as Author of Literary and Artistic Works

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

The use of Artificial Intelligence technology in different areas of human life has caused severalimportant legal challenges, which indicate an unprecedented development. Generative ArtificialIntelligence, which appears to be a creative form of this technology, is important from a literaryand artistic law perspective, since generating high-quality literary and artistic works is amongthe tasks it can perform. Such productions are similar to those created by human authors, andin some cases it is difficult to recognize that they were generated by Artificial Intelligence.Therefore, this paper addresses one of the most important challenges in intellectual property law:whether Generative Artificial Intelligence can be considered the author of the literary, artistic,and scientific works it generates. The results of this descriptive-analytical article show that,in the legal systems compared, the concept of author is currently restricted to human authors;consequently, it is not possible to consider Generative Artificial Intelligence as the author ofliterary and artistic works. Legislators are recommended to modify the laws to identify the authorof literary and artistic works created using Generative Artificial Intelligence while meeting theneeds of developers and users of this technology.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

A R Al‑Sanhuri, Middle Commentary on the New Civil Code, Part 8: Property Right (Dar Ihya al‑Turath al‑Arabi, n.d).
C Colombet, Grands Principes du Droit d’Auteur et des Droits Voisins dans le Monde (UNESCO 1987).
H Al‑Khalifah, An Introduction to Generative Artificial Intelligence (Iwan Research Group 2023).
OMPI, L’IA générative: Saisir les enjeux en matière de propriété intellectuelle (2024).
S Mohseni and SMH Ghabooli Dorafshan, Literary and Artistic Rights: A Comparative Study in Iranian, French and Egyptian Law (Ferdowsi University of Mashhad 2015).
S Zarkalam, Literary and Artistic Property Law (Samt 2009).
A Al‑Fatlawi and A Hussain, ‘How to Determine Originality in Literary Works: A Comparative Study’ (2022) 65(2).
A Baleegh, ‘Applying Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Comparative Jurisprudential Inference’ (2025) 5 International Journal of Sharia and Islamic Studies.
E Ghattan, ‘Protection of Author’s Right on the Internet: An Analytical-Comparative Study in French and American Laws’ (2015) Ahmed Bin Mohammed Military College Journal for Administrative Sciences and Law.
G Myers, ‘The Future is Now: Copyright Protection for Works Created by Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) 102 Texas Law Review Online.
L D Godefroy, ‘Quel Droit pour l’IA Générative?’ (2025) Revue LexSociété (hal-05013796).
M Longan, ‘A System Out of Balance: A Critical Analysis of Philosophical Justifications for Copyright Law Through the Lens of Users’ Rights’ (2023) 56 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform.
M Al‑Tahhan, ‘The Legal Problems of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Light of the Restrictions of Copyright and Personal Data Protection (Comparative Study)’ (2025) 1 Legal and Economic Sciences Journal.
M Blaszczyk, ‘Impossibility of Emergent Works’ Protection in U.S and E.U Copyright Law’ (2023) 35(1) North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology.
P R Goold and D A Simon, ‘On Copyright Utilitarianism’ (2024) 99(3) Indiana Law Journal.
S H Shobeiri Zanjani and M Abdullah, ‘The Scope of Author’s Rights and its Exceptions’ (2025) 73(5) Journal of the Iraqi University.
C Gestin‑Vilion, La Protection par le Droit d’auteur des Créations Générées par Intelligence Artificielle (LLM thesis, Université Laval and Université Paris‑Saclay 2017).
M Rouxel, Le Refus de Reconnaître le Statut d’Auteur à l’Intelligence Artificielle et ses Conséquences (LLM thesis, Université Laval and Université Paris‑Saclay 2019).
Reports, Webpages, and Online Sources
C Murielle, ‘Intelligence Artificielle et Droit d’Auteur’ (2023) <https://www.murielle-cahen.fr/intelligence-artificielle-et-droit-dauteur/> accessed 19 February 2026.
N Snow, Moral Bars to Intellectual Property (2021) 80 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3877573> accessed 19 February 2026.
WIPO, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’ <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-40141> accessed 19 February 2026.
US Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3rd edn, 2021) §308.
US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).
US Copyright Office, Letter to Rayan Abbott (2020).
US Copyright Office, Letter to Lindberg (2023).
Civil Action No 22‑1546 (BAH).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No 1:22‑cv‑01564).
Burrow‑Giles Lithographic Co v Sarony 111 US 53 (1884).
Google LLC v Oracle America Inc 593 US 1 (2021).
Naruto v Slater No 15‑CV‑04324 (ND Cal, 28 January 2016).
Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studios Inc 464 US 417 (1984).
United States v Paramount Pictures Inc 334 US 131 (1948).
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 4, Issue 1
June 2026
Pages 250-264

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics