The Indicator from Planet Money

Episode: Can you copyright artwork made using AI?

Date: August 25, 2025
Host: Waylon Wong
Guest: Emma Jacobs (Reporter, Montreal), David Fuhr (General Counsel, CIPPIC, University of Ottawa), Ankit Sani (IP Lawyer, New Delhi), Karis Craig (Law Professor, York University)

Overview

This episode explores a rapidly emerging question: Can you copyright artwork made using AI? The hosts examine the legal grey area around copyrighting creations made wholly or in part with generative AI tools like ChatGPT and DALL·E, using a case study of an international legal experiment. The discussion highlights how different countries are responding to this challenge and the tricky spectrum of "human creativity" when machines assist or collaborate in producing art.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Two Faces of AI and Copyright (00:11–01:03)

• Many lawsuits against AI companies involve inputs (AI scraping copyrighted works for training data), but this episode focuses on outputs: Who owns what AI generates?
• Host Waylon Wong and guest Emma Jacobs frame the complexity: What if an AI produces part of the work and a human contributes the rest—does copyright apply, and who would hold it?
  • "What if you use ChatGPT to partly create something and then a human creates the rest of the... Is it eligible for copyright? And if so, who holds it?" (Emma Jacobs, 00:40)
  • "You are breaking my brain, Emma." (Waylon Wong, 01:03)

2. The Human Creativity Requirement in Copyright Law (02:15–03:44)

• David Fuhr (CIPPIC) explains the historical bedrock of copyright law: Only works created by humans can be copyrighted.
  • "There's lots of stuff out there that's beautiful. You know, the Grand Canyon is extraordinarily gorgeous, but there's no copyright in it. There's no author of that natural formation. It's gotta be a work produced by a human, we would say, for there to be copyright in it." (David Fuhr, 03:00)
• Simple AI-generated outputs (e.g., "show me a cat") don't qualify, as the human creative input is negligible.

3. The Spectrum of Human Involvement in AI Art (03:44–03:59)

• The conceptual shift: There’s now a spectrum of human–machine collaboration, from trivial prompt entering to deep creative involvement, raising questions about where to draw the line.

4. Case Study: Ankit Sani’s AI–Human Artwork Mashup (03:59–06:24)

1. Experiment Design

   • Ankit Sani, an IP lawyer in India, created an app that would re-render an original smartphone photo (a sunset) in the style of Van Gogh's Starry Night (public domain).
   • "I obviously tinkered around with the variables, which was how much style was to be transferred." (Ankit Sani via podcast, 05:14)
   • The resulting image, "Suryas" (Hindi for "sunset"), was then submitted for copyright registration in India, the US, and Canada, with both Sani and his AI app listed as co-authors.

2. Registry Outcomes:

   • India: Application was granted, withdrawn, then upheld after appeal.
   • United States: Rejected (maintained on appeal), as copyright requires a human author.
   • Canada: Registration is automated with no review; Sani’s work entered the registry.

   "In Canada, there is no human review. You fill out a form, pay a fee, and click, you're in the registry… registration isn't actually what gives someone copyright. It functions more like proof if a conflict arises." (Waylon Wong, 06:06)

5. The Legal Challenge in Canada (06:24–07:26)

• David Fuhr objected to the Canadian registration, fearing it implied that wholly or partially AI-made works could be copyrighted.
• Attempts to contact Sani for correction were unsuccessful, so Fuhr sought a federal court order to expunge the registration, prompting Sani to hire legal representation.

6. Broader Ramifications & Law Professor Perspective (07:07–08:12)

• Karis Craig (York University) comments on the significance of these registry battles:
  • "There are lots of people who agree that these decisions could ultimately prove kind of critical in terms of how we see generative AI evolve and change our cultural landscape." (Karis Craig, 07:33)
• Anecdotes of US copyright office decisions:
  • An application was rejected even when the human issued 600+ prompts.
  • A graphic novel partly illustrated with Midjourney was granted partial protection.
  • In the "Single Piece of American Cheese" case, the artist earned protection only for arranging AI-generated pieces, not for the pieces themselves.

7. The Messy Reality and Ongoing Legal Evolution (08:12–09:26)

• The US approach is to carve out non-copyrightable AI-made content from the human contributions.
  • "The difficulty is... to kind of parse what did the AI generate versus what did the human author or user create." (Karis Craig, 08:55)
• As AI is embedded into everyday software, drawing these lines will only get harder and more important.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "You are breaking my brain, Emma." – Waylon Wong on the copyright dilemmas (01:03)
• "It's gotta be a work produced by a human, we would say, for there to be copyright in it." – David Fuhr (03:10)
• "I obviously tinkered around with the variables, which was how much style was to be transferred." – Ankit Sani (05:14)
• "There are lots of people who agree that these decisions could ultimately prove kind of critical in terms of how we see generative AI evolve and change our cultural landscape." – Karis Craig (07:33)
• "The difficulty is going to be... to kind of parse what did the AI generate versus what did the human author or user create." – Karis Craig (08:55)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:11: Introduction of the AI copyright dilemma
• 02:32: Appearance of David Fuhr, context on copyright law fundamentals
• 03:44: Human vs. AI contribution spectrum
• 04:11: The Sani case and international experiment details
• 06:06: Explanation of Canadian registration process
• 07:07: Legal reaction and commentary from Karis Craig
• 08:12: US cases and the struggle to define boundaries
• 09:08: Future challenges as AI becomes more integrated

Conclusion

This episode lays out the evolving legal landscape around copyright in the age of generative AI. It demonstrates that current laws are struggling to keep up with technological change, leading to differing legal approaches worldwide and a moving target for creators who work with AI. As AI becomes ever more integrated into creative tools, the line between human and machine authorship—and the question of copyright—will only become murkier and more significant.