Legal Precedents for Non-Human Actors in Creative Works

 

English Alt Text: Four-panel black-and-white comic titled "Legal Precedents for Non-Human Actors in Creative Works." A woman says, “What happens when AI or animals create art?” The robot replies, “In the U.S., only humans can hold copyright.” The woman adds, “Even the monkey selfie didn’t qualify.” The robot concludes, “For now, human authorship is still the law.”

Legal Precedents for Non-Human Actors in Creative Works

As AI, autonomous tools, and even animals begin contributing to creative outputs, a provocative legal question arises:

Who owns the copyright when the creator isn’t human?

From AI-generated art to the famous “monkey selfie” case, courts around the world are setting important precedents for non-human authorship.

This post explores the legal landscape around ownership, authorship, and liability when the “creator” is not a person in the traditional sense.

📌 Table of Contents

🤖 AI as an Author: Current Copyright Office Stance

In the U.S., the Copyright Office has repeatedly ruled that only works created by human beings can be copyrighted.

Recent cases involving AI-generated images, text, and music have all resulted in partial or full copyright rejections.

AI-generated content can be protected *only* if a human made significant creative contributions beyond merely prompting.

🦍 The Monkey Selfie Case and Animal Authorship

In *Naruto v. Slater* (2018), a macaque monkey snapped a selfie using a photographer’s camera.

PETA filed a lawsuit on the monkey’s behalf, claiming copyright ownership of the photo.

The court ruled that non-human animals cannot hold copyrights under U.S. law, setting a precedent with global influence.

⚙️ Copyright and Machine-Made Works

Mechanical systems and procedural algorithms have long contributed to creative output—such as generative music or abstract art.

Courts have not extended copyright to these machine-generated works unless a human exercised creative judgment in their production.

This reinforces the "human authorship" principle as a legal cornerstone.

👥 Human-AI Collaboration and Co-Authorship

Some creators argue that humans and AI are co-authors when tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, or Synthesia are used iteratively and intentionally.

While copyright offices don’t yet formally recognize non-human co-authors, documenting the human’s creative role is essential.

For now, the human must prove they shaped the final product through originality and discretion.

📈 Future Implications and Legislative Trends

Countries like the UK, Singapore, and South Africa are exploring limited copyright rights for machine-made works.

The EU’s AI Act and similar proposals may eventually redefine what constitutes authorship in a computational age.

In the meantime, creators should register works under their name and maintain logs of creative input when using AI tools.

🔗 Key Resources on Non-Human Creators and Copyright

Dive deeper into authorship law and creative automation with these links:











As creative boundaries blur, courts continue to affirm one constant: legal authorship begins—and ends—with humans. For now.

Keywords: AI copyright precedent, non-human authorship law, monkey selfie case, machine-made art legality, creative work ownership