Originality is a fundamental requirement for works to receive copyright protection. However, as the term lacks a universally accepted definition, interpretations of originality vary across jurisdictions. This article first examines key theories underpinning copyright law to justify the necessity of an originality threshold. It then analyses how the United States, the United Kingdom, India, China, and the European Union define and apply this criterion. In the final section, the article argues that, these jurisdictions, when applying their well-established principles and case law consistently, can accommodate findings of originality in AI-generated artworks. The article critiques the misconception shared by some jurisdictions that equate the originality criterion with the human authorship requirement to deny copyright protection to AI-generated works. Such an approach, the article contends, leads to arbitrary and unjustifiable decisions. Furthermore, the article argues that acknowledging originality in AI-generated artistic works does not diminish human creativity, as human input remains essential in working with AI tools, as exemplified by Refik Anadol's pioneering works.
Söğüt Atilla (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: