In Brief:
- Current UAE Law Does Not Recognize AI as an Author: Under the UAE Copyright Law, only natural or juridical persons can be considered rightsholders. AI, as a tool, cannot be attributed authorship, raising important questions around ownership of AI-generated works.
- Human Creativity Remains Central to Copyright: The article explores how authorship depends on the degree of human involvement — mere use of AI is not enough; creative input, direction, and refinement by a human are essential.
- A Call for Legal Reform: With no explicit legal guidance in the UAE and growing reliance on AI tools, there is an urgent need for legislative updates to address ownership, protection, and authorship of AI-generated content.
With the significant advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and its applications in various domains, numerous legal challenges have emerged. Among these challenges is determining whether AI-generated works can be attributed to an author and the current legal position in the UAE on this matter.
This brief article does not aim to exhaustively address the intricacies and complexities of this evolving subject but rather sheds light on key issues and general principles. More detailed articles exploring the nuances of different types of works will follow in due course.
Definition of Works and Authors under UAE Law
Referring to Federal Law No. 38 of 2021 on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (the “Copyright Law”), it is evident that UAE law does not currently contain provisions or definitions pertaining to artificial intelligence. Article 1 of the law defines a work as:
“Any innovative creation in literature, arts, or science, regardless of its type, mode of expression, significance, or purpose.”
The same article defines an author as:
“The person who creates the work or the one whose name is mentioned or attributed to the work when published, unless proven otherwise.”
This leads to two immediate questions:
- Who does the UAE law define as a “person”?
- Is AI considered to be a person?
Legal Personhood: Natural or Juridical
The UAE Copyright Law addresses the first question by defining a “person” in Article 1 as either a natural or a juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person (such as a company) may own copyright but cannot be regarded as an “author” in the strict legal sense. Authorship inherently requires human contribution, whereas ownership may ultimately vest in a juridical person, as is generally the case with intellectual property created by employees under the aegis of a corporation.
AI as a Person?
Regarding the second question, AI is not a “person” but rather a technological tool, whether simple or complex, used by individuals to perform specific tasks. This raises a related question: Does the use of AI by an individual to generate a creative work entitle that individual to claim authorship?
Exploring the Issue: A Closer Analysis
While there is no explicit provision in the current legal framework addressing this matter, a closer analysis can be conducted by considering the following principles:
- Definition of a Work and the Role of Creativity:
Under the Copyright Law, a work is defined as an innovative production, and the author is the person who creates the work. This inevitably leads to examining the concept of creativity, which the law defines as distinctive originality that imbues a work with uniqueness and authenticity. Therefore, establishing authorship requires evidence of creative input by a person. - Creativity and Human Contribution:
Several provisions of the UAE Copyright Law emphasize the necessity of human creativity. For instance, Article 3 excludes ideas, procedures, methods of work, mathematical concepts, and abstract facts from copyright protection. However, protection is granted if any of these involve a creative expression. Similarly, laws, official documents, news reports, and public domain works are excluded unless their arrangement, compilation, or presentation demonstrates creative effort.
Attribution of Authorship for AI-Generated Works
If creativity is the standard, the pertinent question becomes: Can a person be considered the author when creativity primarily derives from an AI tool?
In the absence of explicit provisions, my personal opinion is that it is necessary to assess the degree of creativity attributable to the human element to determine authorship. If the contribution is minimal or negligible, the person cannot successfully claim authorship. For instance, if an individual merely instructs an AI tool to generate a comprehensive research paper by providing only the title, that person cannot be considered the author. However, if the individual uses creative efforts by providing detailed instructions, guiding the AI with innovative input, overseeing and refining the final output, then authorship may be attributed proportionately to the extent of contribution.
National and International Precedents and their Implications
To the best of my knowledge, there is no judicial precedent in the UAE that has addressed this issue. Moreover, even if a dispute arises before UAE courts, current legal texts may not provide sufficient guidance. Given that intellectual property principles are becoming somewhat universal due to their foundation in international agreements, there is nothing preventing UAE courts from considering foreign precedents for guidance and adapting such principles within the available legal framework.
In a recent case in the United States, the District Court of Washington in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) ruled that the U.S. Copyright Act requires “human authorship” for granting copyright protection. The court emphasized that works generated solely by AI without human intervention do not satisfy this requirement. It relied on the U.S. Copyright Act’s stipulation that protection is granted only to “original works of authorship,” interpreting the term “author” as historically and judicially confined to human beings.
In the Thaler case, the plaintiff, a computer software expert, had created an AI system that produced an innovative image. He attempted to register the AI system as the author, claiming copyright ownership as the system’s creator. The court rejected this argument, affirming that human creativity is the cornerstone of copyright protection and that expanding this concept to include intelligent systems would require explicit legislative amendment by Congress. The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s argument regarding “work for hire,” clarifying that this doctrine applies only to works produced by humans for another entity under an employment contract and not to works generated by non-human systems.
While this approach appears reasonable and fair, it introduces practical complexities. Although maintaining the element of human creativity as a cornerstone of intellectual property is justified, to prevent over-reliance on machines, leaving the matter in a legislative vacuum is problematic. This raises further questions:
- Does this mean that AI-generated works automatically fall into the public domain, devoid of any protection?
- If there is creative contribution by the human using AI, who is the author and who owns the copyright?
Another landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884). This case involved the photographer Napoleon Sarony, who captured a famous image of British author Oscar Wilde. The defendant company copied and commercially exploited the image, prompting Sarony to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.
The defendant argued that the work was merely a mechanical reproduction of reality and lacked human creativity. The court sided with Sarony, affirming that photography is protected under copyright law a provided that it reflects human creativity. The court highlighted the photographer’s creative choices, including pose selection, clothing, expression, background arrangement, and lighting.
The Need for Legislative Intervention
In conclusion, it is possible to assert a claim to copyright if the work reflects human creativity. However, in the absence of specific provisions regulating this issue, questions and interpretations will persist, relying on available legal texts and general principles to either confer or deny rights. To the best of my knowledge, there is no judicial precedent in the UAE that has addressed this issue to date.
There is an urgent need for legislative intervention to address these issues and establish a robust framework to safeguard the rights of all parties involved by regulating the use and exploitation of AI-generated works. AI is no longer a futuristic concept, it is a rapidly advancing reality that requires a corresponding legal structure to govern its practices and implications.
Should you require any information on the above, please contact Rami Omar, Partner, Dispute Resolution at r.omar@hadefpartners.com.