AI, Copyright & Creativity — Part 3 of 4
Artificial intelligence is not only a subject of debate. For some artists, it is also becoming one tool among many.
AI might help someone explore compositions or test visual ideas. Another artist may prefer paint, clay, photography or digital drawing without generative AI. Each approach involves different creative choices.
But when AI contributes to an artwork, who owns the result?
Human creativity is central
Under European copyright principles, an artwork must reflect original human creative choices to qualify for protection.
An image produced entirely by a machine, without meaningful human authorship, will generally not be protected by copyright. But using AI as part of a larger process does not automatically remove protection from the artist’s own original contributions.
What matters is how much the artist shaped the expressive result. Specific cases may require careful assessment, and the terms of the AI service can also affect what users are allowed to do with an output.
Does the process change the value of art?
For collectors and art lovers, the question goes beyond law. Does knowing that AI was involved change how we experience a work?
Some value the physical act of making; others respond primarily to the ideas or emotions conveyed. Neither reaction is universal.
The tool does not, by itself, determine the artistic value of the work. Understanding the artist’s decisions gives us a richer picture.
Next Friday: Practical steps artists can take to protect and document their work.
Further reading: Belgian FPS Economy — Copyright FAQ · European Commission IP Helpdesk — Generative AI and copyright