Abstract The aim of this theoretical study was to examine the ethical dilemmas related to the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in visual art, with a focus on authorship, ownership, and the shifting boundaries of creativity. The research was conducted in 2024–5 using methods of conceptual analysis, legal comparison, and interdisciplinary synthesis. A total of forty-three peer-reviewed sources were analysed across the fields of art theory, cultural philosophy, intellectual property law, and cognitive aesthetics. The results show that authorship in AI-generated art is increasingly viewed as distributed. While primary responsibility is attributed to human users—through prompt design, selection, and interpretation—there is growing recognition of algorithmic systems as co-contributors. Legal frameworks in six jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, the USA, Germany, Japan, and China) remain fragmented: most require human input for copyright protection, yet differ in how they define ‘authorship’. Analysis of empirical findings from existing studies confirms that audience perception is shaped by authorship attribution: artworks known to be created by humans received significantly higher aesthetic ratings (mean = 5.72, AI = 4.99, P .001). At the same time, the perceived originality of AI outputs led to divided judgements about their legal and cultural legitimacy. In conclusion, the study highlights that AI enhances formal production but lacks intentionality, emotion, and cultural awareness. These findings are relevant for updating legal definitions, designing transparent AI tools, and creating educational programs on human–AI collaboration in creative fields.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.