Peru's National Institute for the Defence of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) reported on 29 September that its Specialised Chamber for Intellectual Property has confirmed on appeal the first-instance refusal to register copyright in 3 AI-generated images filed by the same applicant, titled 'Viejo Callejón de un solo caño', 'Café del Lunes' and 'Lomo Saltado en Taberna'. The Chamber stated that copyright protects personal and original intellectual creations, so a protected work must result from human creative activity, and that results generated exclusively by automated systems, algorithms or artificial intelligence cannot be regarded as protectable works under copyright law.
The applicant argued that artificial intelligence was only a support tool and that his participation was decisive for composition, perspective, lighting, colours, textures, the selection of results and the final editing, adding that for the first work he had defined the atmosphere and visual narrative, incorporated new architectural elements and successively modified the prompts to guide the result.
The Chamber found, however, that no evidence had been filed that would allow it to verify the degree of human participation claimed or the alleged substantial creative control over the final result, and all three registrations were refused; the decision is final at administrative level but may still be challenged before the courts.
The point of the decision is not that no AI-assisted work can be registered but how human creative intervention is proved: the Chamber did not deny that the kind of control described by the applicant could amount to a creative contribution, it found that the claim was unsupported by evidence.
This is consistent with the recent emphasis of Chinese courts on keeping records of the creative process in AI-generated image cases, and shows that proof, not the tool itself, is becoming the decisive issue across jurisdictions.
J&C recommends that companies creating with AI in Peru and in other jurisdictions that require proof of human authorship keep verifiable process evidence from the outset: each round of prompts and its changes, parameter settings, candidate outputs and the reasons for choosing among them, and layered editing files with time records; in a registration application, file that material as evidence and explain which specific expression comes from human choices rather than making general statements; and build the same creation file for AI-assisted material already published.
Source: elperuano.pe | andina.pe
