CAN AN ALGORITHM BE A FASHION DESIGNER? DEFENDING HUMAN AUTHORSHIP IN THE AGE OF AI-GENERATED FASHION

Abstract

The increasing use of artificial intelligence within the fashion industry has generated significant legal uncertainty regarding authorship, ownership, and copyright protection. From AI-assisted garment sketches and seasonal collections to luxury branding and trend forecasting, generative technologies are reshaping contemporary fashion design practices. This article examines whether AI-generated fashion designs should receive copyright protection and whether existing legal frameworks adequately safeguard human creativity within the fashion sector. Through a comparative analysis of the copyright regimes of India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States, together with an examination of contemporary case law and academic scholarship, the article argues that fashion design remains fundamentally rooted in human creative judgment, artistic vision, and cultural expression. It proposes the Human Creativity Preservation Theory, which maintains that while artificial intelligence may function as a valuable design-assistance tool, copyright protection and designer attribution should remain dependent upon meaningful human authorship in order to preserve originality, accountability, and the integrity of fashion creativity.

Introduction

A luxury fashion house enters a prompt into an artificial intelligence system requesting a handbag inspired by timeless French craftsmanship and luxury aesthetics. Within seconds, the system generates a sophisticated design that closely resembles an iconic luxury product and is subsequently incorporated into a commercially successful collection. This seemingly straightforward design process raises a series of complex legal questions. Who is the true creator of the handbag the algorithm that generated the design, the individual who drafted the prompt, the software developer who created the AI system, or the fashion house that commercialised the product? More importantly, can a fashion design generated through artificial intelligence qualify for copyright protection, and if so, who should be recognised as its legal author? These questions lie at the centre of an emerging debate within contemporary fashion law.[1]

The issue has become increasingly significant as artificial intelligence technologies are rapidly transforming the fashion industry. Generative AI systems are now capable of producing fashion sketches, garment concepts, colour palettes, marketing campaigns, and even entire seasonal collections with minimal human input. Luxury fashion houses and fast-fashion retailers alike are exploring AI-assisted design processes to reduce costs, accelerate production cycles, and identify emerging consumer trends. While these technologies offer significant commercial advantages, they simultaneously challenge long-standing legal assumptions regarding originality, authorship, ownership, and creative labour.[2] Unlike many other industries, fashion derives substantial value not only from the appearance of a product but also from the artistic vision, craftsmanship, reputation, and cultural identity associated with its creator. Consequently, the increasing use of AI-generated designs raises concerns that extend beyond copyright law and strike at the very foundation of fashion creativity itself.[3]

Existing legal frameworks remain ill-equipped to address these challenges. Copyright law across most jurisdictions continues to be built upon the principle that creative works originate from human intellectual effort.[4] However, generative AI systems increasingly blur the distinction between human and machine contribution, creating uncertainty regarding who should receive legal protection when fashion designs emerge from human-AI collaboration. At the same time, arguments advocating recognition of AI-generated works often overlook the distinctive nature of fashion design as a process involving aesthetic judgment, cultural expression, technical expertise, and designer identity rather than the mere production of visual outputs.

This article argues that artificial intelligence should not be recognised as a fashion designer under contemporary copyright principles. While AI may function as a valuable design-assistance tool, meaningful authorship and ownership should remain dependent upon substantial human creative contribution. To support this argument, the article undertakes a comparative analysis of copyright frameworks in India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States, together with an examination of relevant case law and contemporary academic scholarship. It develops the Human Creativity Preservation Theory, which asserts that fashion law must continue to prioritise human creative labour, artistic judgment, cultural expression, and designer identity in the age of generative AI.

The article proceeds in five parts. It first establishes the conceptual foundations of originality, authorship, and ownership within fashion law. It then examines the challenges posed by AI-assisted fashion design through a comparative analysis of relevant copyright frameworks. The article subsequently evaluates significant judicial decisions and contemporary disputes concerning AI-generated creative works before developing the Human Creativity Preservation Theory as a normative framework for addressing authorship and ownership within the fashion industry. Finally, it offers recommendations for preserving human creativity while accommodating technological innovation within the evolving landscape of fashion law.

Background and Conceptual Framework

Authorship, Originality, and Human Creativity

The concepts of authorship and originality occupy a central position within copyright law. Traditionally, copyright protection has been justified on the basis that creative works originate from human intellectual effort, artistic judgment, and individual expression. Across major jurisdictions, including India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States, copyright law has historically been structured around the assumption that authors are human actors capable of exercising creative control over the works they produce. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence challenges this foundational premise by introducing systems capable of independently producing sophisticated visual outputs with minimal human intervention.

Scholars have increasingly questioned whether existing copyright doctrines can accommodate machine-generated works. Anthi Gaidartzi and Irini Stamatoudi identify significant uncertainties regarding authorship and ownership in AI-generated content,[5] while Rita Matulionyte and Jyh-An Lee argue that contemporary copyright frameworks struggle to reconcile technological innovation with traditional concepts of creative labour.[6] These debates are particularly important within the fashion industry because the value of fashion design extends beyond mere visual appearance and encompasses artistic vision, cultural meaning, and designer identity. Consequently, the question is not simply whether AI can generate a design, but whether algorithmic generation can satisfy the legal and philosophical requirements of authorship itself.

Generative AI and Contemporary Fashion Design

Artificial intelligence is increasingly integrated into contemporary fashion design processes. Fashion houses and independent designers employ AI-assisted systems to generate mood boards, predict consumer trends, develop colour palettes, and create preliminary garment sketches. These technologies enable designers to rapidly explore multiple creative possibilities before selecting and refining preferred concepts. Scholars such as Mark Jetsaphon Niyompatama and Ioanna Lapatoura observe that AI-assisted fashion creation presents significant copyright challenges because the resulting outputs emerge from varying degrees of human and machine collaboration.[7] Similarly, Caen A. Dennis questions whether ownership of AI-generated fashion designs should belong to the prompt creator, the software developer, or the designer who ultimately selects and commercialises the output.[8]

Despite these technological developments, AI currently functions primarily as a creative assistance tool rather than an autonomous fashion designer. Human designers continue to exercise control over silhouette selection, fabric choice, garment construction, collection coherence, and brand identity. Accordingly, the growing use of AI in fashion design raises important questions concerning the extent of human contribution necessary to establish authorship and ownership under existing copyright regimes.

Intellectual Property Protection and Luxury Fashion

The relationship between intellectual property law and fashion design has become increasingly complex in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Fashion designs occupy a unique position within intellectual property law because they frequently combine artistic expression, commercial branding, and cultural significance. Nayomi Mendez Andrade argues that generative AI creates new challenges for the protection of fashion designs by increasing the risk of design replication and complicating the identification of original creators. Likewise, Pierre-Marie Chauvin and his co-authors highlight the transformative impact of AI technologies on traditional design practices and creative ownership.

These concerns are particularly significant within the luxury fashion industry. Unlike mass-market products, luxury goods derive value not solely from their physical appearance but from heritage, exclusivity, craftsmanship, and designer reputation. Industry reports such as Fashion after Fashion: A Report of AI in Fashion and The Fashion Executive’s Guide to Generative Artificial Intelligence emphasize that the increasing use of AI may challenge the authenticity and originality upon which luxury branding depends. Consequently, contemporary fashion law must address not only questions of copyright ownership but also broader concerns regarding the preservation of human creativity and luxury brand identity.

AI-Assisted Design in Contemporary Fashion Practice

The growing use of artificial intelligence in fashion design demonstrates that AI currently operates as a collaborative tool rather than an autonomous creator. Contemporary designers employ platforms such as Midjourney, DALL-E, and specialised fashion AI software to generate mood boards, explore garment concepts, predict consumer trends, and develop preliminary sketches. However, these outputs rarely become finished products without substantial human intervention. Designers remain responsible for selecting concepts, refining silhouettes, choosing fabrics, constructing garments, and ensuring consistency with brand identity and collection themes.

This distinction is particularly important from a legal perspective. Although AI may contribute to the generation of visual ideas, the final fashion product typically reflects extensive human decision-making and creative judgment. Consequently, contemporary industry practice supports the view that AI functions as an assistive technology rather than a replacement for human fashion designers. The persistence of significant human involvement strengthens the argument that authorship and ownership should continue to be linked to meaningful human creativity.

Legal Analysis: Unpacking Authorship and Ownership

1. Can an Algorithm Be a Fashion Designer?

The fundamental question of whether an algorithm can legally be considered a fashion designer must be answered in the negative. Fashion design is a complex synthesis of spatial awareness, textile knowledge, aesthetic intuition, and cultural resonance—qualities inherently restricted to human consciousness. Across the analyzed jurisdictions, copyright law explicitly or implicitly requires human authorship. In India, Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines the “author” in relation to various works, establishing that the author is the person who causes the work to be created.[9] Similarly, the EU’s InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC relies on the “author’s own intellectual creation” standard, a bar that inherently presumes human intellect.[10] Therefore, algorithmic generation, which relies on statistical prediction and pattern recognition rather than artistic intention, cultural understanding, or conscious creative judgment, cannot satisfy the requirements of a legally recognised fashion designer. Fashion design is not merely the production of visual outputs; it involves aesthetic decision-making, cultural interpretation, technical knowledge of garment construction, and the ability to communicate a creative vision through wearable products. While AI systems may generate sophisticated fashion images, they remain incapable of exercising the human judgment that copyright law has traditionally sought to protect.

Supporters of AI authorship argue that sufficiently advanced systems can generate outputs that are indistinguishable from those created by human designers. However, copyright law does not protect works solely because they appear creative. Rather, it protects the intellectual and creative process underlying their production. Even where an AI-generated garment design appears innovative, the absence of human intentionality and independent creative agency creates significant obstacles to recognising the system as a legal author. Accordingly, current copyright frameworks remain justified in maintaining a human-centred conception of authorship.

2. Prompt Designer or Fashion Designer?

The rise of generative AI has led to the argument that the person writing the text prompt should be considered the designer. However, evaluating whether prompt-writing constitutes authorship requires distinguishing between an idea and its expression. When a user inputs a prompt—such as the scenario’s request for a “luxury handbag inspired by timeless French craftsmanship” they are providing an unprotectable idea or a set of general instructions. The AI system then autonomously executes the visual expression of that idea. Under foundational copyright principles, authorship is generally attributed to the individual who exercises meaningful control over the expressive elements of a work rather than the person who merely provides instructions or ideas. In the context of fashion design, a prompt such as “design a luxury handbag inspired by timeless French craftsmanship” may guide the creative process, but it does not determine the precise silhouette, proportions, construction details, textures, or aesthetic characteristics ultimately produced by the AI system. Consequently, prompting alone should not automatically qualify as fashion design because the user often lacks direct control over the final visual expression.

Nevertheless, a contrary argument deserves consideration. Sophisticated prompt engineering may involve extensive experimentation, refinement, and creative direction, particularly where designers iteratively modify prompts to achieve specific artistic outcomes. Some commentators therefore argue that prompting represents a new form of creative labour deserving legal recognition. While this position has merit, it risks conflating conceptual direction with authorship itself. Fashion design traditionally encompasses far more than ideation; it includes material selection, garment construction, aesthetic judgment, wearability considerations, and the development of a coherent creative vision. Accordingly, prompt-writing may contribute to the design process, but it should not automatically replace the role of the human fashion designer as the legal author.

3. Who Owns the Product?

Determining ownership of an AI-generated fashion product involves analyzing competing claims by the AI system, the software developer, the prompt writer, and the fashion designer. The AI system itself has no legal personhood and thus possesses the weakest claim; it cannot own property. The software developer typically disclaims ownership of user outputs through Terms of Service, retaining rights only to the underlying code. The prompt writer may claim ownership, but as established, their contribution often falls on the side of unprotectable ideas. Therefore, the strongest ownership claim under contemporary copyright principles generally belongs to the human fashion designer who exercises meaningful creative control over the final product. Where a designer selects AI-generated concepts, modifies aesthetic features, determines garment structure, chooses materials, and transforms preliminary outputs into commercially viable products, the resulting work reflects substantial human authorship. Ownership should therefore vest not in the algorithmic generation itself but in the human creative labour that shapes, refines, and ultimately realises the final fashion design.

However, ownership disputes become considerably more complex where the human contribution is minimal. If a fashion company simply enters a prompt into an AI system and commercialises the resulting output without substantial modification, the justification for granting copyright protection becomes significantly weaker. Such situations expose a regulatory gap within existing copyright frameworks because current laws were largely drafted before the emergence of generative AI technologies. Courts may therefore be required to develop new standards capable of distinguishing genuinely AI-assisted fashion design from works that are predominantly machine-generated.

4. The AI Birkin Hypothetical: A Fashion Law Stress Test

The practical difficulties of AI-generated fashion design can be illustrated through a hypothetical luxury handbag dispute. Imagine that a fashion house uses a generative AI system to create a handbag inspired by “timeless French craftsmanship.” The resulting design bears a striking resemblance to the iconic Birkin bag and is subsequently incorporated into a commercially successful collection. In such circumstances, multiple legal questions arise simultaneously. Can the fashion house claim copyright ownership over the design? Does the resemblance amount to unlawful copying? Could the luxury brand whose product inspired the output pursue trademark or trade dress claims?

This scenario demonstrates the limitations of existing copyright frameworks. Although the fashion house may argue that it contributed the prompt and commercialised the product, the originality of the resulting design remains uncertain where substantial portions may have been derived from training data. At the same time, recognising the AI system as the designer would create further legal uncertainty because the system lacks legal personality and cannot bear rights or liabilities. Consequently, the strongest ownership claim remains with the human actors who exercised meaningful creative judgment throughout the design process. However, the hypothetical highlights the urgent need for clearer legal standards governing AI-assisted fashion creation.

       5. Has Creativity Shifted from Drawing Garments to Designing Prompts?

The emergence of generative AI has prompted claims that fashion creativity is undergoing a fundamental transformation, shifting from traditional sketching, draping, and pattern-making toward the crafting of sophisticated text prompts. Proponents of this view argue that prompt engineering represents a new form of creative labour because users must carefully formulate instructions, refine outputs, and guide the AI system toward a desired aesthetic outcome. From this perspective, creativity no longer resides primarily in the act of drawing garments but in directing the technological process that produces them.

While prompt engineering undoubtedly requires imagination and technical skill, equating prompting with fashion design risks oversimplifying the nature of creative authorship. Fashion design encompasses far more than the generation of visual concepts. It involves fabric selection, garment construction, fit, wearability, cultural interpretation, brand identity, and aesthetic judgment. A designer must understand how materials behave on the human body, how garments function in physical space, and how collections communicate a coherent artistic vision. These elements remain fundamentally dependent upon human expertise and cannot be reduced to textual instructions alone.

Moreover, prompt engineering is often characterised by uncertainty because users cannot precisely control the expressive details generated by AI systems. The final output is ultimately determined by algorithmic processes operating beyond the user’s direct supervision. Consequently, prompting should be viewed as a tool of ideation rather than a substitute for fashion design itself. Creativity has therefore not shifted from drawing garments to designing prompts; rather, the tools through which designers explore and develop ideas have evolved. The essence of fashion creativity continues to reside in human judgment, artistic intention, and the ability to transform abstract concepts into meaningful wearable designs.

Case Law Discussion

The legal boundaries of AI and fashion are heavily informed by established case law regarding copyright, trademark, and the strict requirement for human authorship. The following cases provide the necessary judicial context for analyzing AI-generated fashion designs.

Thaler v Perlmutter

Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright for a two-dimensional visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” explicitly naming his AI system, the “Creativity Machine,” as the sole author. The U.S. Copyright Office refused the registration.

Issue: Can an artificial intelligence system be recognized as an author under United States copyright law?

Judgment: The District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the Copyright Office’s refusal, granting summary judgment for the defendants.

Principle established: Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright law; works generated entirely by non-human entities are not eligible for copyright protection.

Relevance to AI-generated fashion design: This case categorically precludes AI systems from being legally recognized as fashion designers in the U.S. A fashion house cannot copyright a garment sketch or textile print if it is entirely generated by an algorithm without substantial human modification.[11]

Critical Analysis: While Thaler firmly reinforces the human authorship requirement, it leaves unresolved the increasingly common scenario in which designers use AI as one component within a broader creative process. Fashion design rarely involves purely autonomous AI generation. Instead, designers often employ AI to generate preliminary concepts before exercising substantial creative judgment in refining the final product. Consequently, future fashion-law disputes are likely to focus less on whether AI can be an author and more on how much human contribution is required before copyright protection arises.

Star Athletica v Varsity Brands

Facts: Varsity Brands held copyrights for two-dimensional graphic designs (stripes, zigzags, and color blocks) appearing on the surface of their cheerleading uniforms. Star Athletica produced competing uniforms with substantially similar designs, prompting Varsity to sue for copyright infringement.

Issue: Are two-dimensional graphic designs applied to useful articles (like clothing) eligible for copyright protection?

Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Varsity Brands, establishing the separability test.

Principle established: A design on a useful article is copyrightable if it can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and would qualify as a protectable work on its own if imagined outside of the useful article.

Relevance to AI-generated fashion design: While the cut and shape of a garment generally remain uncopyrightable as useful articles, surface prints and graphics generated for fashion collections can be copyrighted. However, if these surface designs are AI-generated, they will fail the authorship requirement, leaving them entirely unprotected against fast-fashion replication.[12]

Critical Analysis: The significance of Star Athletica extends beyond traditional garment design and provides an important framework for AI-assisted fashion creation. Even if AI-generated garments themselves do not qualify for protection, surface graphics, textile prints, and ornamental design elements may still satisfy copyright requirements where substantial human involvement exists. The case therefore illustrates that the copyrightability of fashion designs depends not only on originality but also on the nature of the creative contribution being protected.

Hermès International v Rothschild (MetaBirkins)

Facts: Digital artist Mason Rothschild created and sold a series of NFTs titled “MetaBirkins,” which featured digital depictions of furry handbags closely resembling the iconic Hermès Birkin bag. Hermès sued for trademark infringement and dilution.

Issue: Does the creation and sale of digital assets replicating physical luxury goods constitute trademark infringement, or is it protected artistic expression under the First Amendment (the Rogers test)?

Judgment: A federal jury found Rothschild liable for trademark infringement, brand dilution, and cybersquatting.

Principle established: Digital replicas of luxury goods that mislead consumers regarding the source or sponsorship of the asset infringe upon the brand’s trademark rights.

Relevance to AI-generated fashion design: Returning to the introductory scenario, if an AI is prompted to generate a “French luxury handbag” and produces a design nearly identical to a Birkin, commercializing that output would likely trigger severe trademark and trade dress infringement, demonstrating the legal risks of relying on AI’s derivative training data.[13]

Critical Analysis: MetaBirkins is particularly significant because it demonstrates that legal risks associated with AI-generated fashion extend beyond copyright law. Even where a fashion house successfully claims authorship over an AI-assisted design, it may still face liability if the output reproduces protected trademarks, trade dress, or distinctive brand identifiers. The case therefore highlights a central challenge of generative AI: a design may appear original while simultaneously drawing so heavily from existing luxury products that it creates consumer confusion. For luxury fashion brands, trademark protection may therefore become an increasingly important safeguard against algorithmic imitation.

Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

Facts: Infopaq operated a media monitoring business that scanned Danish newspapers and extracted 11-word text snippets to send to clients. The Danish newspaper association sued for copyright infringement.

Issue: Can a brief extract of 11 words constitute an original work protected by copyright under EU law?

Judgment: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that even an 11-word extract could be protected if it reflects the author’s own intellectual creation.

Principle established: The overarching standard for originality and copyright protection in the EU is that the work must be the “author’s own intellectual creation.”

Relevance to AI-generated fashion design: The ECJ’s emphasis on “intellectual creation” mandates human cognitive involvement. An algorithmic fashion generation lacks intellect and creative intent, meaning purely AI-generated seasonal collections would fail the EU’s originality test and remain in the public domain.[14]

Critical Analysis: Infopaq is important because it places human intellectual creation at the centre of copyright protection within the European Union. This principle presents a significant obstacle to recognising fully autonomous AI-generated fashion designs as copyrightable works. However, the decision also raises difficult questions regarding collaborative creation, particularly where human designers actively guide, curate, and refine AI-generated outputs. As AI-assisted fashion design becomes increasingly common, courts may be required to clarify how much human intellectual contribution is necessary to satisfy the originality requirement.

Beyond questions of authorship, contemporary litigation increasingly focuses on the legality of the datasets used to train generative AI systems. Cases such as Andersen v Stability AI, Getty Images v Stability AI, and Disney & Universal v Midjourney[15] challenge the large-scale use of copyrighted materials in AI training processes without the consent of rights holders. Although these disputes remain ongoing, they are highly relevant to the fashion industry because fashion sketches, runway photographs, advertising campaigns, and luxury-brand imagery may form part of the datasets used by generative systems. The outcomes of these cases are likely to influence how courts assess originality, ownership, and liability in future AI-assisted fashion disputes.

Critical Analysis and Findings

How Can We Ensure AI-Generated Fashion Designs Are Original?

Originality represents one of the most significant legal challenges posed by AI-assisted fashion design. Generative AI systems are trained on vast collections of pre-existing visual material, including fashion sketches, runway photographs, garment patterns, and commercial product designs. As a result, concerns arise that AI-generated outputs may reproduce protected elements of existing works without the knowledge of either the user or the fashion house employing the technology.

Current copyright frameworks provide limited guidance on how originality should be assessed where creative outputs emerge through human-AI collaboration. While some commentators argue that AI-generated designs should receive protection if they appear novel, this approach risks overlooking the possibility that such outputs may be derived from existing protected works contained within training datasets. Consequently, originality should not be evaluated solely by reference to the final visual appearance of a design. Courts should also consider the extent of human creative contribution involved in selecting, modifying, refining, and commercialising the output.

In the fashion industry, meaningful human involvement remains the most reliable indicator of originality. Designers who actively shape AI-generated concepts through aesthetic judgment, garment construction, material selection, and creative refinement contribute something fundamentally different from algorithmic generation alone. Therefore, originality should remain closely linked to substantial human creative input rather than the autonomous operation of artificial intelligence systems.

AI, Fast Fashion, and Luxury Brands

The widespread adoption of generative AI has the potential to reshape the commercial structure of the fashion industry. Fast-fashion businesses may use AI systems to generate designs inspired by luxury collections within seconds, dramatically reducing the time required to identify, modify, and commercialise emerging trends. This capability risks accelerating design appropriation on an unprecedented scale and may disproportionately harm independent designers who lack the resources necessary to protect their creative work through litigation.

The threat is particularly significant for luxury fashion brands. Unlike mass-market products, luxury goods derive value not only from their physical appearance but also from exclusivity, craftsmanship, heritage, and designer reputation. Excessive reliance on AI-generated aesthetics risks weakening the connection between fashion products and the human creativity that traditionally underpins luxury branding.[16] If algorithmic generation becomes the dominant source of design inspiration, the distinctive artistic identities that differentiate luxury houses may gradually become diluted.

Consequently, fashion law must strike a careful balance between encouraging technological innovation and preserving the human creativity that remains central to the cultural and economic value of fashion. Failure to maintain this balance may undermine both intellectual property protection and the long-term sustainability of luxury fashion itself.

Human Creativity Preservation Theory

This article proposes the Human Creativity Preservation Theory as a normative framework for resolving authorship disputes in AI-assisted fashion design. The theory argues that copyright protection within the fashion industry should remain grounded in meaningful human creative contribution rather than algorithmic generation. Fashion design is not merely the production of visual outputs but a process involving artistic judgment, cultural expression, technical expertise, craftsmanship, and designer identity. Consequently, AI should be treated as a creative assistance tool rather than an independent author.

The theory is particularly relevant to luxury fashion, where commercial value derives from exclusivity, heritage, reputation, and creative vision. Granting authorship to purely AI-generated designs risks weakening the connection between legal protection and human creativity while simultaneously encouraging large-scale design replication. By preserving human authorship as the foundation of copyright protection, fashion law can accommodate technological innovation without undermining the artistic and cultural values that define the fashion industry.

Conclusion

The growing integration of artificial intelligence into the fashion industry has generated significant legal uncertainty regarding authorship, ownership, originality, and intellectual property protection. This article examined whether an algorithm can be recognised as a fashion designer and whether AI-generated fashion designs should receive copyright protection under contemporary legal frameworks. Through a comparative analysis of the copyright regimes of India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States, together with an examination of relevant case law, the article demonstrated that existing copyright systems remain fundamentally grounded in the principle of human authorship.

The analysis established that while artificial intelligence can function as a powerful tool for ideation, trend forecasting, and preliminary design generation, it cannot independently satisfy the legal requirements of authorship. Fashion design extends beyond the production of visual outputs and encompasses artistic judgment, cultural expression, technical expertise, craftsmanship, and designer identity. Consequently, meaningful human contribution must remain the foundation of copyright protection within the fashion industry.

The article therefore concludes that AI should be treated as an assistive technology rather than a legal creator. Future legal reforms should focus on clarifying standards for AI-assisted authorship, enhancing transparency in AI design processes, and preserving the central role of human creativity in fashion innovation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Statutes and Directives

• Copyright Act 1957 (India)

• Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10 (InfoSoc Directive)

Cases

• Andersen v Stability AI Ltd (ND Cal) (pending)

• Disney Enterprises, Inc & Universal City Studios LLC v Midjourney, Inc (ND Cal) (pending)

• Getty Images (US), Inc v Stability AI, Inc (D Del) (pending)

• Hermès International v Rothschild 22-cv-384 (SDNY 2023) (MetaBirkins)

• Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2009] ECR I-06569

• Star Athletica, LLC v Varsity Brands, Inc 580 US 405 (2017)

• Thaler v Perlmutter 687 F Supp 3d 140 (DDC 2023)

Secondary Sources

Journal Articles

• Andrade NM, ‘Generative AI and the Fashion Industry: New Frontiers in Intellectual Property Protection’ (2025) 17 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 112

• Chauvin P-M and others, ‘Algorithmic Aesthetics: Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Luxury Fashion Design’ (2024) 31 International Journal of Cultural Studies 89

• Dennis CA, ‘Prompting Fashion: Copyright Ownership and Creative Control in AI-Generated Garment Designs’ (2025) 22 Intellectual Property Quarterly 45

• Gaidartzi A and Stamatoudi I, ‘Authorship and Ownership in AI-Generated Content: Contemporary Challenges for Copyright Law’ (2024) 46 European Intellectual Property Review 201

• Lapatoura I, ‘Digital Fashion and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Intersection of AI, NFTs, and Copyright’ (2024) 19 Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 34

• Matulionyte R and Lee J-A, ‘Copyright, Creative Labour, and Technological Innovation: Reconciling Machine-Generated Works with Traditional Doctrines’ (2024) 55 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 312

• Niyompatama MJ, ‘Artificial Intelligence as a Collaborative Tool in Fashion Creation: Legal and Practical Implications’ (2025) 10 Fashion Theory & Law Journal 78

Reports

• Fashion after Fashion: A Report of AI in Fashion (The Fashion Innovation Institute 2024)

• The Fashion Executive’s Guide to Generative Artificial Intelligence (McKinsey & Company / Business of Fashion 2023)

[1] Paulius Jurcys and Mark Fenwick, ‘Originality and the Future of Copyright in an Age of Generative AI’ (2023).

[2] See generally Andrew Begemann and James Hutson, ‘Navigating Copyright in AI-Enhanced Game Design: Legal Challenges in Multimodal and Dynamic Content Creation’ (2025) 3(1) Journal of Information Economics 1.

[3]

[4] Anthi Gaidartzi and Irini Stamatoudi, ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Issues of Authorship and Ownership’ (2024).

[5] Anthi Gaidartzi and Irini Stamatoudi, ‘Authorship and Ownership Issues Raised by AI-Generated Works: A Comparative Analysis’ (2025) 14(4) Laws 1.

[6] Rita Matulionyte, ‘Transparency of Facial Recognition Technology and Trade Secrets’ in Rita Matulionyte and Monika Zalnieriute (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Facial Recognition in the Modern State (Cambridge University Press 2024) 60.

[7] Ioanna Lapatoura, ‘Fashion beyond physical space: NFTs and intellectual property challenges in the metaverse’ (2022) 33(6) Entertainment Law Review 197.

[8] Caen A. Dennis, ‘AI-Generated Fashion Designs: Who or What Owns the Goods?’ (2020) 30 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 593.

[9] Copyright Act 1957, s 2(d).

[10] Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10 (InfoSoc Directive).

[11] Thaler v Perlmutter, 487 F Supp 3d 1 (DDC 2023).

[12] Star Athletica, LLC v Varsity Brands, Inc, 580 US 405 (2017).

[13] Hermès International v Rothschild, 22-cv-384 (SDNY 2023); see also Ioanna Lapatoura, ‘From Hermes v Rothschild to Vegap v Mango: An EU analysis on fair metaverse uses of digitised IP’ (2024) Cátedra Metaverso UA Working Paper Series 1.

[14] Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECR I-06569.

[15] Andersen v Stability AI Ltd, 23-cv-00201 (ND Cal 2023); Getty Images (US), Inc v Stability AI, Inc, 23-cv-00135 (D Del 2023).

[16] Susan Scafidi, ‘Creation, Destruction, and the Future of Fashion’ (2020) 30 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 389.