PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 19, 2025SCRIPTed A Journal of Law Technology & Society0 citationsOpen Access

Intent, control and creative freedom in AI- Supported Output: Lessons from Photography

View Full Paper
ABAdriana Berbec

Key Points

  • The article argues that human decisions significantly affect AI-supported outputs, similar to photography.
  • While authorial control alone cannot establish originality, it contributes to evaluating AI outputs.
  • The concepts of semantic and categorial intent are explored to assess originality in AI-supported outputs.
  • Understanding AI's output requires analyzing the interplay between user decisions and the creative process.

Abstract

The advancements achieved by generative AI have marked a significant step in creative art, raising copyright law questions, particularly around issues of authorship, originality and the role of AI in the creative process. Copyright law has grappled with similar challenges before, especially with the advent of emerging technologies, as evidenced during the early days of photography. Just as photography was initially viewed as the product of a machine rather than a human creation, so is output created with the support of generative AI often seen as predominantly AI driven. By drawing an analogy with the camera, this article explores how the users’ expression of free and creative choices, a fundamental aspect of originality under EU copyright law, can be identified at various stages in the production process of AI-supported output. It argues that the stage of ‘taking a photograph’ encompasses a series of human decisions rather than being an isolated act of pressing the shutter. Similarly, if the execution stage is seen as a process of converting users’ decisions into a preliminary output—much like ‘shooting a photograph’—those decisions can also serve as an additional element for attributing originality to AI-supported outputs. In analysing the emerging standards of authorial intent and control in assessing originality for AI-supported outputs, the article explores the distinction between semantic and categorial intentions, as well as the interplay between intent, control and the predictability of the outcome. It concludes that since categorial intent is always achieved and therefore infallible, the AI-supported output will consistently align with the author’s conception or fundamental approach to the work. Moreover, while authorial control and intent alone cannot establish originality, they can nonetheless contribute to assessing the originality of AI-supported output when they are evident in the creative process or its outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Adriana Berbec (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d46cd731b076d99fa694c9https://doi.org/10.2218/scrip.22.1.2025.11648
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Copyright of photography and artificial intelligence: a tale of two technologies2025
  2. 2Ethical dilemmas in artificial intelligence-generated art: authorship, ownership, and the blurring of creative boundaries2026 · 4 citations
  3. 3Generative AI art and copyright governance: Rethinking the adaptation right and its limits2026
  4. 4Authorship in artificial intelligence‐generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection2024 · 61 citations
  5. 5Authorship and Ownership Issues Raised by AI-Generated Works: A Comparative Analysis2025 · 20 citations