Mexico’s Supreme Court has appealed to the unique nature of human creativity in its recent ruling that works created “exclusively” by artificial intelligence (AI) systems are not registrable under the country’s copyright regime because those protections are founded on human “creativity, intellect, feelings, and experiences.”
In a July 2 session, Mexico’s Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) upheld an earlier decision made by the country’s copyright authority, the Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor (INDAUTOR), that stated AI cannot be recognized as the author or holder of copyright.
“The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that works created by artificial intelligence cannot be registered as copyright in Mexico,” said INDAUTOR, in an August 29 post on X. “The creativity protected by law is exclusively human.”
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision does not entirely rule out AI-created works being registered for copyright in Mexico, but the applicant will have to demonstrate a substantive human contribution.
Future applicants who use AI in their creative process will need to carefully document the points of human intervention in the process and present it in a way consistent with the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA).
If no creative human input exists and AI does the entire process, the resulting work will not be granted copyright. However, creations made this way may still qualify for trademarks or industrial designs, as long as the appropriate legal requirements are met.
The case of the AI Avatar
The background to the Supreme Court decision was a 2024 application made by Gerald García Báez—Mexican-born founder and CEO of Businessadvocacy—to the INDAUTOR for the copyright registration of a “Virtual Avatar,” generated through an AI platform called ‘Leonardo.’
According to INDAUTOR, the registration was denied on the grounds that the LFDA “requires that works be of human creation, with the characteristic of originality as an expression of the individuality of their author and his personality.”
García Báez challenged this decision before the ‘Specialized Chamber on Intellectual Property of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice,’ arguing that the AI work was registrable because creativity should not be limited to humans, and that excluding it implied a violation of human rights, the principle of equality, and technological evolution.
However, the Chamber confirmed the refusal, so García Báez took his claim to the Supreme Court, arguing that the resolution violated his rights to equality, legal certainty, and non-discrimination.
Unfortunately for García Báez, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved unanimously to deny the request, arguing that creations generated “exclusively” by algorithms lack a human author to whom moral rights can be attributed.
Responding to the ruling, INDAUTOR stated that the Supreme Court had affirmed that “copyright is a human right exclusive to natural persons, derived from their creativity, intellect, feelings and experiences.”
The copyright institute added that “the protection of artificial entities cannot be analysed under the premise of the human right to legal equality, since both have incompatible characteristics” and that “works autonomously generated by artificial intelligence do not meet the originality requirements demanded by the LFDA.”
In other words, the Supreme Court declared that works created exclusively by AI systems are not registrable under the copyright regime.
Implications
While the Mexican court’s decision represents a setback for those such as García Báez who want to copyright the creations of AI, it doesn’t appear to have much impact on a more contentious debate related to AI and copyright: Whether artists and creators can protect their works from being used by AI without their say so or due compensation.
The answer to this complex issue was not within the remit of the case laid at the Supreme Court’s feet, so the debate will no doubt continue.
Neither did the Supreme Court’s decision change the status quo for traditional artists and creators who do not use AI and seek to register their work for copyright. Such creators have been, and remain, protected by the copyright laws of Mexico.
The only significant implication for creatives in Mexico is that the ruling definitively confirms that AI, as a sole author or artist, cannot hold moral rights. Thus, the work it created cannot be granted a copyright.
This does, however, leave the door open for hybrid works—created by a person directing, editing, or transforming the result generated by algorithms so that it is no longer solely the work of AI—to gain copyright approval, as long as the applicant can prove enough human contribution.
This may be good news for some AI artists and creators, but it still begs the question: Where do you draw the line regarding what is ‘enough’ human input? A question that may need to be answered in future legal battles.
In order for artificial intelligence (AI) to work right within the law and thrive in the face of growing challenges, it needs to integrate an enterprise blockchain system that ensures data input quality and ownership—allowing it to keep data safe while also guaranteeing the immutability of data. Check out CoinGeek’s coverage on this emerging tech to learn more why Enterprise blockchain will be the backbone of AI.
Watch: Adding the human touch behind AI
title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” referrerpolicy=”strict-origin-when-cross-origin” allowfullscreen=””>
Source: https://coingeek.com/mexico-rules-that-work-created-by-ai-cannot-be-copyrighted/