{"id":25477,"date":"2026-03-09T11:44:59","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T11:44:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?post_type=ip-law&p=25477"},"modified":"2026-03-09T11:45:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T11:45:00","slug":"creating-in-the-age-of-chat-gpt-when-is-content-i-generate-with-ai-mine-and-when-is-it-not","status":"publish","type":"ip-law","link":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/creating-in-the-age-of-chat-gpt-when-is-content-i-generate-with-ai-mine-and-when-is-it-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Creating in the age of Chat GPT. When is content I generate with AI mine, and when is it not?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Violeta Arnaiz Medina. <\/strong>Director of Intellectual Property, AI and Software at PONS IP<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the dawn of time, human beings have demonstrated an irrepressible creative drive that has transcended eras and styles. To this end, they have used tools that, in their constant evolution, have largely shaped the way we create\u2014even the way we think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how do we now differentiate between art created by a human author and art generated by a tool that, for the first time, is capable of emulating this ability that has, until now, been uniquely ours? We already know that intellectual property legislation reserves copyright for human creators, and it is not possible for a machine author or an AI author to claim any legal monopoly over the outputs produced by these systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it turns out that artists, always at the forefront, are determined to play with technology and even to hybridise with it. So what do we do with this \u201chybrid\u201d art? Where does AI that generates outputs based on generic prompts end, and where does the creator with superpowers<\/em>, the one who puts the tools at the service of their artistic cause, begin?<\/strong>  As doctrine has long indicated, what matters is who is in charge.<\/strong> Who directs the creative process and makes the decisions that condense the originality of the content created.<\/strong> The devil is in the details, and copyright, now more than ever, is too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this sense, the very recent judgement of 13 February 2026 (142 C 9786\/25) of the Local Court of Munich<\/strong> (Amtsgericht M\u00fcnchen)[1]<\/a>, which establishes a series of criteria to navigate these turbulent waters and help us determine who\u2014the human or the AI\u2014is at the helm of the creative process, is very interesting for its pioneering but also clarifying nature. The trigger is a lawsuit\u2014somewhat prefabricated, according to the Court’s suspicion[2]<\/a>\u2014in which one party accuses another of using the following logos without permission:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a starting point, the judgment recognises that \u201cit is conceivable that copyright protection exists for the results of AI systems created as a result of human intervention\u201d.<\/strong>In other words, the case of a human creator assisted by AI and benefiting from copyright is, in theory, possible. This intervention<\/em> referred to in the ruling can be carried out through \u201csufficiently individualised prior adjustments in the programming of the process of creating the specific content\u201d and\/or through the iterative input of instructions or prompts into the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the results of this process will only be protectable \u201cto the extent that, despite the software-controlled process, human creative influence continues to be exercised\u201d.<\/strong> This influence, which must be expressed through \u201cfree and creative decisions, with the author adding their personal touch to the result\u201d\u2014as case law has unanimously established\u2014will occur when \u201cthe use of the AI model is closer to an auxiliary tool than to an independent creation instrument\u201d<\/strong>. And this, according to the ruling, will only happen when the creative elements incorporated into the prompt \u201cdominate the result in such a way that the object as a whole can be considered an original creation of its author\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once this framework for action has been established, the ruling analyses the plaintiff\u2019s actions one by one. And it concludes that, in these cases, \u201cthe creative design, that is, the exact selection of the elements incorporated into the illustration, has been left to the rules of AI\u201d<\/strong>, which prevents the resulting works from being protected. We highlight some of the main ideas or criteria of this analysis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n