Mexico’s Supreme Court rules only humans can hold copyright protection

Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled that works created exclusively by artificial intelligence cannot be granted copyright protection, establishing that authorship belongs solely to humans. The unanimous decision creates a significant legal precedent for AI and intellectual property in Mexico, clarifying how the country will handle the growing intersection of AI technology and creative rights.

What you should know: The Supreme Court determined that Mexico’s Federal Copyright Law reserves authorship exclusively for humans, rejecting the idea that AI-generated works can qualify for copyright protection.

• The court ruled that automated systems lack the “necessary qualities of creativity, originality and individuality that are considered human attributes for authorship.”
• According to the ruling, “copyright is a human right exclusive to humans derived from their creativity, intellect, feelings and experiences.”
• The decision states that protections cannot be granted to AI on the same basis as humans since both have “intrinsically different characteristics.”

The case that started it all: The ruling emerged from a 2024 dispute over an AI-generated work called “Virtual Avatar: Gerald García Báez,” created using an AI system called Leonardo.

• Mexico’s Copyright National Institute (INDAUTOR) initially denied registration for the work, stating it lacked human intervention and didn’t meet the Federal Copyright Law’s requirement for human creation.
• The applicant contested the denial, arguing that excluding AI-generated works violated principles of equality, human rights, and international treaties including USMCA and the Berne Convention.
• The Supreme Court clarified that international treaties do not obligate Mexico to grant copyrights to non-human entities or extend authorship beyond what’s established in Mexican law.

AI collaboration still allowed: The resolution does permit copyright registration for works created in collaboration with AI, provided there is substantial human contribution.

• Works where humans “direct, select, edit or transform the result generated by AI until it is endowed with originality and a personal touch” can still qualify for copyright protection.
• Intellectual property specialists recommend documenting human intervention and submitting the creative process in a way that aligns with the Federal Copyright Law.
• This approach allows for AI as a tool while maintaining human authorship as the foundation for copyright protection.

Why this matters: Mexico joins a growing number of countries grappling with how to handle AI-generated content in copyright law, with this decision potentially influencing similar cases across Latin America and beyond.