A Federal Court case is set to consider whether a generative AI tool can be recognized as an author under Canada’s Copyright Act. The dispute involves the image “Suryast,” which was registered with both its human creator and the RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App listed as co-authors. CIPPIC argues that copyright authorship is limited to humans, while the registrant says the Act does not expressly require an author to be an individual and that both he and the AI tool contributed skill and judgement to the work. The case could provide important guidance on AI-generated works, human involvement and what is required for copyright protection in Canada.
As generative AI rockets ahead, copyright law is struggling to keep pace. In the Federal Court, the case of Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) v Sahni (T-1717-24) raises fundamental questions about authorship under the Copyright Act in Canada, and whether a generative AI tool can properly be considered an "author" for the purposes of the Act.
In this fascinating case, Ankit Sahni obtained a copyright registration in Canada for the image titled "Suryast" (Canadian Copyright Registration Number 1188619) in December, 2021. The registration identifies both Sahni and a certain generative AI tool, “RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App”, as co-authors.
CIPPIC has challenged the issuance by the Copyright Office of this registration, complaining that the AI painting app cannot be an author, since the Act is designed to protect the works of humans, and an AI program is not capable of being an author for these purposes.
Sahni, for his part, argues that the involvement of AI does not preclude copyright protection. The Copyright Act, he argues, does not specifically say that an author must be an individual. He goes further to assert that both he and the AI program exercised the necessary skill and judgement, and made unique contributions to the creation of SURYAST for copyright purposes. He says the work is an expression that would not exist without both contributions, and so the registration correctly recognizes this co-authorship.
The parties are currently waiting for the Federal Court to set a hearing date. Watch this case for guidance on the line between human authorship, the involvement of generative AI, and the degree of human involvement which is necessary to attract copyright protection.
As generative AI becomes more common in the creation of written, visual and other content, businesses need to consider how copyright protection may apply. If you have questions about copyright, AI-generated content or protecting your intellectual property, contact Richard Stobbe or a member of Field Law’s Intellectual Property + Technology Group.
