Page 173 - AC-3-2

Arts & Communication Copyright protection for AI-generated works

As a result, when considering the characteristics of the the scope of protection, setting a precedent for future types
work, there are likely similarities with prior art, particularly of works – such as those created by AI – to be eligible
with the input data used by the AI being publicly available. for copyright protection. Thus, it is reasonable to argue
While the AI’s output may be unique in expression, the that AI-generated works could qualify as literary works
underlying idea or presentation of the work may not be protected under the BC.
new, as it is based on data and concepts already known In addition, international treaties aim to promote
to the general public. Since patent protection is primarily technological innovation and facilitate the transfer and
concerned with protecting novel ideas and inventions, dissemination of technology. This reflects the legislative
works created by AI are unlikely to meet the “novelty” intent that the protection of intellectual property rights,
criterion required for patent protection. particularly copyright, should align with the advancement
The advantages of patent protection are therefore of science and technology and the broader socio-economic
rendered ineffective if AI-generated works cannot meet the development.
necessary criteria. Copyright protection, on the other hand, For the laws of the countries reviewed in this paper,
addresses this issue by focusing solely on the expression of in the United States, the Copyright Law has traditionally
the work rather than the underlying idea. AI can freely use been understood as protecting the products of human
any available data sources, as long as the resulting work is intellectual labor and the creative output of individuals.
unique and demonstrates originality in its expression. The United States Copyright Office has stated that “it

3.2. Support for copyright protection of will only grant copyright registration for works that are the
4 5.12
AI-generated works in current legal frameworks result of human activity” By adhering to this principle,
works generated by AI are not recognized for copyright
Current legal frameworks, including international treaties protection in the United States, meaning such works are
to which Vietnam is a member state and the laws of the effectively placed in the “public domain.” Specifically,
countries reviewed in this paper, reflect a vision that according to the guidelines of the United States Copyright
supports the establishment of a protection mechanism Office, a work is eligible for copyright protection only if
for AI-generated works in the future. These frameworks it is the result of intellectual labor that involves creative
embody a modern, progressive outlook that recognizes the capacity – something that is inherently a human endeavor.
need for the law must adapt to technological advancements, Consequently, any work that is determined not to be
such as AI. human-made will be denied protection Similarly, the
6.13
First, regarding international treaties to which Vietnam Office also denies protection to works created by machines,
is a member state, it must be noted that these treaties do especially those produced randomly or automatically,
7
not include specific provisions for the copyright protection without any creative intervention from humans .
of AI-generated works. However, they do represent the However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
collective vision of legislators and member states on (DMCA) of 1998 predates the current debates surrounding
technological progress, socio-economic development, and
the future trajectory of technology application. This vision 4 Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing
is evident in how these treaties progressively expand the Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence . In the 1973
12
scope of protection and demand higher levels of protection edition of the Copyright Office’s Compendium of Copyright
to keep pace with continuous technological advancements, Office Practices, the Office cautioned that it would not
particularly in the realm of AI. register materials that did not “owe their origin to a human
agent.”
The BC of 1971 introduced a broad concept of literary 5 Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing
and artistic works eligible for copyright protection. In Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence . If a work’s
12
the first line of Article 2(1), the BC provides a general traditional elements of authorship are produced by a
11
definition of what qualifies as “literary and artistic works,” machine, the work lacks human authorship, and the Office
stating that “the expression “literary and artistic works” will not register it.
13
shall include every production in the literary, scientific, 6 U.S Copyright Office . Because copyright law is limited to
and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office
will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human
of its expression…” This phrase, “whatever may be the being did not create the work.
mode or form of its expression” opens the possibility for 7 U.S Copyright Office . Similarly, the Office will not register
13
works created through AI to be considered as literary works produced by a machine or by a mere mechanical
and artistic works under the BC. By offering such a wide process that operates randomly or automatically, without
definition of “literary and artistic works,” the BC expands any creative input or intervention from a human author.

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 4 doi: 10.36922/ac.3745