Music Publishers Canada Intervenes in Landmark AI Copyright Case, Stressing Human Authorship Amid Global Legal Scrutiny

Music Publishers Canada (MPC) has formally entered a pivotal legal dispute before the Federal Court of Canada, a case poised to redefine the boundaries of copyright protection for works created with artificial intelligence and to clarify the contentious question of whether an AI tool can legitimately be designated as an "author" alongside human creators. At the heart of this legal challenge is a visual artwork titled "Suryast," generated by artist Ankit Sahni using an AI tool named RAGHAV. While the immediate focus of the Canadian courts is on this visual piece, MPC has underscored the profound and far-reaching implications the eventual ruling will have for the music industry, particularly concerning the eligibility of AI-assisted musical compositions for copyright protection under Canadian law. The intervention by MPC signals the escalating anxieties within creative sectors about the erosion of traditional copyright principles in the face of rapidly advancing generative AI technologies.

MPC’s involvement stems from its deep-seated interest in the Federal Court’s determinations regarding "Suryast"’s copyright status and, critically, whether the RAGHAV AI tool should be recognized as a co-author. The organization’s unequivocal position, articulated in its legal submission, asserts that "only a human can be an author for copyright purposes." While acknowledging that certain circumstances might warrant copyright protection for works where humans leverage AI tools, MPC firmly maintains that "the AI tool itself should not be recognised as a legal ‘author’." This stance reflects a broader international consensus emerging in many jurisdictions, which prioritizes human intellectual effort as the fundamental prerequisite for copyright eligibility.

The Evolving Landscape of AI and Copyright Law

The advent of generative artificial intelligence has unleashed an unprecedented wave of creativity, enabling the rapid production of complex works across various artistic domains, from visual art and literature to music and software code. However, this technological leap has simultaneously cast a long shadow of uncertainty over existing copyright frameworks, which were fundamentally designed to protect the fruits of human intellect and labor. The central tension lies in reconciling centuries-old legal principles with novel forms of creation where machines play an increasingly significant, sometimes autonomous, role.

Copyright law traditionally hinges on the concept of "originality," requiring a work to originate from a human author and to embody a modicum of skill, judgment, and creativity. The "author" is not merely the person who presses a button, but the individual who conceives, develops, and expresses the creative idea. Generative AI tools, by contrast, can produce outputs that appear highly creative and original, yet the "authorship" behind these outputs is ambiguous. Is it the developer who coded the AI? The user who crafted the prompt? Or the AI itself, seemingly exercising a form of digital "creativity"? This ambiguity directly challenges the foundational pillars of copyright, including ownership, economic rights, and the very purpose of copyright—to incentivize human creation.

The debate largely bifurcates into two categories of AI-related works:

1. Entirely AI-generated works: Where an AI tool produces a work with minimal or no direct human creative input beyond the initial programming or broad instruction. These are often seen as lacking the human spark traditionally required for copyright.
2. AI-assisted works: Where a human creator uses AI tools as instruments to enhance, modify, or generate components of their creative process, retaining significant human skill and judgment in the final output. The key question here is the degree of human input required for copyright to vest.

While most jurisdictions lean towards denying copyright protection for entirely AI-generated works, the grey area lies in defining the threshold of "human creativity" required for AI-assisted works to qualify for protection. This is precisely the crux of the Suryast case in Canada and similar legal battles globally. The outcome will inevitably influence how courts interpret "originality" and "authorship" in an age where the lines between human and machine contributions are increasingly blurred.

The Suryast Case: A Chronology of International Legal Scrutiny

The artwork "Suryast" has become a touchstone in the international debate surrounding AI copyright, navigating a complex legal odyssey across multiple jurisdictions. The piece was created by Ankit Sahni, who began with a photograph of a sunset. He then utilized the RAGHAV AI tool to transform this image, instructing it to render the scene in the distinctive style of Vincent Van Gogh’s iconic painting, "The Starry Night." Sahni subsequently sought to register copyright for this outputted image, "Suryast," in several countries, including the United States and Canada, setting the stage for divergent legal interpretations.

United States: A Firm Stance on Human Authorship

The journey of "Suryast" in the United States concluded with a decisive rejection by the US Copyright Office. In line with its established policy, the Office declined to register copyright for "Suryast," asserting that copyright protection is exclusively reserved for works of human authorship. The rationale was clear: AI-generated works, by definition, do not originate from a human creator and therefore fall outside the scope of copyright. Furthermore, in the case of AI-assisted works, the Office determined that the prompts provided by Sahni to the RAGHAV AI were not sufficient to constitute the requisite level of human creative input necessary for copyright protection. The Office distinguished between using AI as a tool, akin to a camera or a paintbrush, and the AI itself performing the creative decisions. For copyright to vest, the human must be the "master mind" behind the work’s creative elements.

This decision was consistent with the US Copyright Office’s earlier ruling concerning "A Recent Entrance To Paradise," an artwork created by Stephen Thaler using his "Creativity Machine" AI. Thaler had attempted to register the AI itself as the author, arguing that the work was created autonomously. This application was also rejected, with the Office emphasizing that copyright law protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the mind." Thaler’s subsequent legal challenge through US courts ultimately failed, with federal judges upholding the Copyright Office’s interpretation. Most significantly, earlier this year, the US Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Thaler case, effectively solidifying the legal precedent in the United States: AI-generated works, lacking human authorship, do not qualify for copyright protection. While AI-assisted works can be protected, the human contribution must transcend mere textual prompting and demonstrate substantial creative control and originality. This rigorous standard for human creativity ensures that copyright remains tethered to human intellectual effort.

Canada: Initial Divergence and Subsequent Challenge

In stark contrast to the US position, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) initially registered a copyright for "Suryast" in 2021. This decision marked a significant departure from international trends, as CIPO notably listed both Ankit Sahni and the RAGHAV AI as co-authors of the work. This registration immediately ignited controversy and drew the attention of intellectual property law experts and public interest groups alike.

The registration was subsequently challenged in the Canadian courts by the Canadian Internet Policy And Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), a leading advocacy group committed to promoting public interest in technology law and policy. CIPPIC mounted a two-pronged legal argument:

1. "Suryast" fails to meet the originality requirements mandated by Canadian copyright law, arguing that the AI’s contribution diminishes the human originality necessary for protection. This argument suggests that the AI’s autonomous function in style transfer might dilute Sahni’s unique creative expression.
2. Even if the work were deemed original, an AI tool, by its very nature, cannot be recognized or listed as an "author" for copyright purposes under Canadian statute or common law principles. CIPPIC contends that granting authorship to a non-human entity would represent an unwarranted expansion of copyright, potentially undermining the public domain and the fundamental purpose of copyright law.

This legal challenge is currently making its way through the Federal Court of Canada, with its eventual ruling anticipated to be a landmark decision that will profoundly influence the interpretation of copyright status for AI-generated and AI-assisted works across Canada. The initial CIPO registration, treating an AI as a co-author, has made Canada’s case particularly unique and globally scrutinized.

MPC’s Intervention: A Call for Consistency and Clarity

It is within this complex and evolving legal landscape that Music Publishers Canada sought and was granted permission last month to formally intervene in the Suryast case. MPC’s intervention is not merely an academic exercise; it represents a proactive effort by a significant industry stakeholder to shape the legal framework in a manner that protects the interests of human creators and copyright holders in the digital age.

In its detailed submission to the Federal Court, MPC meticulously cites both global copyright treaties—such as the Berne Convention, which underpins international copyright law and implicitly focuses on human authorship—and the varying approaches adopted in other key jurisdictions, particularly emphasizing the US’s firm stance. MPC strongly insists that "Canada’s approach to assessing whether copyright protects works created with AI tools should be consistent with the approaches that are being adopted in other jurisdictions around the world." This plea for harmonization reflects a pragmatic concern: if Canada were to diverge significantly and grant AI authorship, it could create complex cross-border enforcement issues, potential "copyright havens" for AI-generated works, and complicate international licensing agreements. A unified international approach is seen as crucial for the stability and enforceability of copyright in an increasingly globalized digital content market.

Supporting Data and Legal Precedents: A Global Perspective

The global legal community is grappling with the same fundamental questions as Canada. While there are nuanced differences, a predominant trend emphasizes human authorship.

• United States: As detailed, the US Copyright Office and subsequent court decisions have firmly established that only works created by a human author are eligible for copyright protection. The Thaler v. Perlmutter case, concerning "A Recent Entrance To Paradise," has been instrumental in this clarification. The DC District Court affirmed the Copyright Office’s position, stating that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." This means that while AI can be used as a tool, the creative spark and original expression must emanate from a human mind. Simple prompts are generally not considered sufficient to vest copyright in the human user if the AI does the heavy lifting of creative expression. The recent refusal by the Supreme Court to hear Thaler’s appeal leaves this precedent unchallenged and strengthens the human authorship requirement.

• United Kingdom: The UK stands out with a specific provision in its Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Section 9(3) states that for "computer-generated works," the author is "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." This unique provision has been interpreted to mean that while the AI itself isn’t the author, the human orchestrating its creation can be. However, this interpretation predates the current wave of highly sophisticated generative AI, where "arrangements" might be minimal compared to the AI’s creative output. The UK government is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of AI and copyright law, with proposals on the table that could potentially amend or even repeal this specific clause, bringing the UK more in line with the "human authorship" principle dominant elsewhere. This review highlights the fluid nature of these laws and the ongoing need for adaptation to reflect current technological capabilities.

• European Union: The EU generally adheres to the principle that copyright protection applies only to "original works of authorship" which reflect the "author’s own intellectual creation." The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently emphasized that originality implies the author’s "free and creative choices." This framework naturally leans against granting authorship to AI systems, as they are not deemed capable of making "free and creative choices" in the human sense. Discussions are ongoing within the EU on how to best regulate AI, including its impact on intellectual property, but the prevailing view favors human creators, with policy proposals focusing on transparency and liability rather than AI authorship.

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): WIPO, the UN agency for intellectual property services, policy, information, and cooperation, has been actively facilitating global discussions on AI and IP. While no binding international treaty specifically addresses AI copyright yet, the consensus building within WIPO often reiterates the human-centric nature of existing IP laws. Many member states express concern about maintaining incentives for human creativity and avoiding a flood of unprotected or ambiguously owned AI-generated content. WIPO’s various expert group meetings have consistently highlighted the challenges of applying traditional copyright concepts to AI, emphasizing the need for clarity to foster innovation while protecting creators.

Official Responses and MPC’s Articulated Position

Music Publishers Canada’s intervention is a calculated move to ensure that the Canadian legal system does not inadvertently create a precedent that could destabilize the music industry’s economic models and creative ecosystem. Their core arguments are clear and consistent with international trends:

• Human Authorship as a Prerequisite: MPC’s foundational argument is that copyright, by its very nature and historical intent, is designed to protect human creativity. Granting authorship to an AI tool would fundamentally alter this principle, potentially devaluing human creative input and creating a host of intractable problems regarding ownership, rights management, and enforcement. This stance aligns with the ratio legis of copyright, which is to incentivize human authors.
• **Distinction Between