AI can create. But only a person can be the author. The challenge now is to prove it.
In October 2026, the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) published a briefing titled “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Outputs.” It examines how European and international courts are addressing a question that already affects the entire creative industry: Who is the author when AI is involved?
The response is becoming increasingly uniform. And it's forcing creators, production companies, and platforms to change the way they document their work.
What the European Parliament Says
Unprotected
The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union places human authorship at the heart of copyright law. Without human creative input, there is no work eligible for protection.
It may be protected
The condition is a substantial creative contribution by humans, and it is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
That's not enough
A simple prompt doesn't turn the user into an author. Human creative decisions about the outcome, however, can.
The courts are already applying it
| Court | Date | Criterion |
|---|---|---|
| Prague | 2023 | Describing a topic using prompts does not make the person who writes them an author. |
| Frankfurt | Dec. 2025 | In a song with AI-generated music, the lyrics written by a person are still protected. Each part is analyzed separately. |
| Munich | Feb 2026 | Prompting can be effective if it reflects the personality of the person doing it. Simply choosing a prompt isn't enough. |
| Düsseldorf | Apr 2026 | Human creative input is required. Simply choosing from AI suggestions is not enough. |
| Italy | AI Act, Art. 25 | It expressly protects AI-assisted works that involve substantial human contribution. |
Outside the EU, the approach is the same. In the United States, the Copyright Office and the Thaler v. Perlmutter case exclude works created solely by AI. In China, the courts grant protection when there is substantial human creativity.
The AI Act adds a layer of transparency
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 does not address whether an AI output is protected by copyright, but it does impose obligations that directly affect the sector.
| Article | From | Obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 50 | Aug. 2, 2026 | AI-generated content must be labeled and marked. |
| Art. 53(1)(c) and (d) | General-Purpose Models | Copyright Policy and Public Summary of the Content Used in the Training. |
Meanwhile, the European Commission continues to assess whether specific measures are needed. It launched consultations in May and September 2026, but no decision has been made yet.
A market that has already changed
Of the more than one million music tracks analyzed in July 2026, 23.2% were created entirely by AI.
Some music charts have already responded. The SNEP in France will exclude tracks generated entirely by AI from its official charts and requires substantial human involvement and a clear disclosure of AI use.
A work that cannot demonstrate its human element is at a disadvantage and may be left unprotected.
The real problem: proving it
The entire framework hinges on a probative question: What did the person do, and what did the machine do?
Today, that question is answered on a case-by-case basis, with no standard and, in many cases, without reliable evidence. A file history can be altered. A statement by the author is just that—a statement. And before a court, a platform, or a collecting society, anything that cannot be verified carries little weight.
From the Creative Process to Sealed Evidence
Which AI is involved?
- List of the AI tools and models used in the process.
- Each person is responsible for their own.
AI makes suggestions. A person reviews them.
- Every review and human approval is logged: who, when, and what.
- Human input becomes a traceable part of the process.
Verifiable evidence
- V-Seal™ cryptographically seals every decision and every document.
- Anyone can check it on the public website, without an account.
The result is a record of authorship that accompanies the work: what the AI contributed, what the person contributed, and when.
This traceability also serves as evidence of compliance with the transparency obligations set forth in Article 50 of the AI Act.
The decision regarding protection will always be up to a court. What V-PROOF guarantees is that, when that question arises, the answer will be backed by evidence rather than mere assertion.
The future of creativity isn't about choosing between humans and AI. It's about knowing how to demonstrate where each one fits in.
You don't have to take our word for it. Any evidence sealed with V-Seal™ can be verified on the public portal—no account required—in just a few seconds.
