Authored By: Gunn Bhardwaj
ABSTRACT
With the advent of artificial intelligence, the global fashion industry is witnessing an accelerated shift towards the emergence of new designs, the prediction of customer trends, and increased production efficiency[1]. In recent times, the use of AI has allowed for the generation of unique clothing patterns, luxury fashion products, and fashion concepts in virtual reality with negligible human interference. Although the technology has opened a vast field for imagination and business prospects, a number of intricate legal issues arise in the context of authorship, rights, and IP protection of such designs. The existing copyright laws and IP regimes have been developed under the premise of creativity on the part of the human mind, which makes it difficult to adapt to the newly emerging forms of artistry generated using the aid of AI. This paper analyzes the problem of protecting AI-generated fashion designs and the legal challenges associated with the issue of authorship and ownership of AI-generated fashion products with a focus on the copyright regimes in India, the US, the UK, and EU.
Keywords: Fashion Law, Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Law, Intellectual Property
INTRODUCTION
The fashion industry is an industry that constantly evolves through innovations. From the creation of sewing machines and other advancements within the industry, technology has played a key role in transforming fashion from its inception, manufacturing, and marketing. Over the last couple of years, there has been another technology known as Artificial Intelligence (AI) which has been instrumental in transforming the fashion industry. The use of artificial intelligence in fashion is evident among fashion designers, luxury fashion brands, and large-scale fashion retailers.
The current debate surrounding AI-generated fashion designs reveals a deeper conceptual problem within copyright law. The current copyright system exists because creators of all human activities in the past inspired its formation. The system produces results through generative AI which seem to contain valuable business potential and artistic value and original content although it does not require human content creators. The legal system needs to decide if it should keep traditional author rights which would block new creative works from protection or expand copyright rules which might damage the human basis of intellectual property law[2].
With AI technology slowly entering the fashion industry, one fundamental question arises: Who can claim to own the fashion design which results from an application of AI technology? Previously, in order for something to qualify as a copyrighted creation, the involvement of human authorship was imperative. The complications that result when an AI system independently creates an artwork without the help of any human input are extremely complex.
This paper analyzes the legal problems that come about as a result of fashion designs created by AI with regard to the current laws in India as well as other countries. This paper also evaluates past judicial decisions on this matter and whether current copyright laws are sufficient enough to tackle this problem.
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
The definition of Artificial Intelligence refers to the technologies that enable people to carry out specific actions involving human intelligence. With regards to the fashion sector, there are many applications of AI that are aimed at predicting fashion trends, controlling inventories, evaluating customers’ features, as well as generating new designs. One of the latest innovations in the field of AI is the application of generative AI that can create visuals based on written descriptions. Generators work by analyzing huge amounts of data including images, drawings, pictures, etc. During this process, machines become capable of learning about the relations between the elements in order to generate products that do not directly replicate the content of the database. In case of the fashion sector, the technology enables the generation of designs, patterns, clothing accessories, as well as fashion products.
For instance, the Copyright Act 1957[3] provides legal protection to artistic work as long as they satisfy the requirements of originality. There are other international conventions such as Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement that have provided measures for protection of artistic works. Nevertheless, both of these agreements have been created during a period when there was nothing called artificial intelligence as a technology[4]. Human authorship is one of the vital aspects of copyright law[5]. The main concept associated with human authorship is that any artistic work created by a person is a reflection of his or her imagination and ingenuity. It has also been explicitly mentioned in all legal rulings that human input plays a key role in any artistic work protected under copyright law[6].
Fashion is one of the industries that show such clashes quite vividly is fashion. Fashion designers started using AI for creating clothing to such an extent that the distinction between creativity of humans and machines gets blurred. It is increasingly challenging to determine who created the particular piece of clothing when more freedom was granted to the AI system because such uncertainty leads to disputes concerning who should be recognized as the creator of the artwork. Thus, the issue of fashion pieces created by means of AI has far-reaching consequences for the future of copyright laws[7].
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Requirement for Human Authorship
Requirement for a human author remains a fundamental principle of copyright. Throughout the world, copyright legislation was developed for the purpose of incentivizing creativity and intellect in humans. This requirement is currently becoming a point of dispute in the case of creations by AI. As has been stated previously, the U.S. Copyright Office[8] has clearly indicated in multiple rulings that copyrighted material can only refer to works created by humans. Based on this requirement, works created solely with the help of artificial intelligence cannot be regarded as authorized.
The logic behind this approach is easy to understand. Copyright law was meant to promote human creativity, not machine output. “Granting copyright protection to autonomous AIs would alter the philosophical foundation of intellectual property law.” At the same time, strict compliance with human authorship may create ambiguity for designers who rely heavily on AI in the creative process[9].
In practice, many fashion designs are the outcome of a collaborative interaction between human users and AI systems. Designers frequently choose prompts, refine outputs, edit them, and choose among multiple generated outputs. Such involvement raises the question of whether copyright should be determined by the amount of human input rather than merely the presence of AI[10].
Ownership Challenges in AI-Generated Fashion
Even if copyright protection is available, determining ownership remains highly problematic. Several competing claims may arise. The user who provides prompts and instructions may argue that the creative choices reflected in those prompts constitute authorship. Under this approach, AI functions merely as an advanced tool similar to design software.
Alternatively, developers of AI systems may claim ownership on the basis that the algorithm’s capabilities result from their technical expertise and investment. A further possibility is that ownership may belong to the organisation that commissioned or financed the work[11].
Each approach presents difficulties. Assigning ownership exclusively to users may undervalue the role of AI technology, while assigning ownership to developers risks depriving designers of rights over outputs they actively shaped. The absence of clear legal guidance creates uncertainty for both creators and businesses operating within the fashion industry.
The Copyrightability of AI-Generated Fashion Designs
But there is a more fundamental question here than that of authorship and ownership: should fashion designs generated by AI be eligible for copyright protection at all? Copyright law has generally protected original expression, not ideas, and the notion of original expression has traditionally been associated with human intellectual effort. This is a problem when algorithms are responsible for creating outputs, not human designers[12].
The arguments for copyright protection include that not protecting AI-generated works might discourage innovation and investment. Fashion brands are investing more in AI-assisted design technologies and the absence of legal protection may diminish commercial incentives. If competitors can just copy AI-generated designs with no consequences, companies might be hesitant to invest in such technologies.
But the broad extension of copyright protection may also raise equally serious concerns. AI systems are trained on large quantities of existing creative works, many of which are copyrighted. Providing exclusivity for AI-generated outputs without changing the underlying training process could lead to unfair advantages and increased litigation. These issues are particularly important in the fashion industry where trends evolve rapidly and inspiration is often drawn from other designs. The challenge, therefore, is to find a balance between the need to promote innovation and the need to protect the sanctity of the intellectual property law[13].
Comparative Jurisdictional Approaches
Different places have taken different approaches to AI-generated creativity.
In the United States, copyright protection still requires human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has traditionally held that works entirely produced by artificial intelligence will not qualify for copyright registration. But the human creative input is still the deciding factor[14].
The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in its position . Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that a computer generated work shall be treated as the work of the author who makes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. This provision was drafted prior to the modern AI era but it is one of the few statutory frameworks that explicitly deal with non-human creative outputs[15]. The European Union has not yet established a comprehensive legal framework specifically for AI-generated works. But the debates around the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and wider digital governance efforts show that awareness of the problem is growing. The EU’s current copyright jurisprudence is still based on human intellectual creation[16].
India currently does not have any express statutory provisions dealing with AI-generated works. The Copyright Act, 1957 was passed at a time when artificial intelligence was not even envisaged. Thus, the Indian courts may ultimately be required to interpret the existing concepts of originality and authorship in light of technological developments. Without such judicial guidance, uncertainty is likely to persist[17].
Implications for the Fashion Industry
The fashion industry is distinguished from many other fields of creative endeavour in that the commercial value of the product is derived from the creativity underlying the product. Furthermore, fashion brands rely significantly upon the protection of their intellectual property to enable their products to stand out from those of their competitors.
AI-generated fashion designs pose both opportunities and risks to the fashion industry. For example, AI has the potential to enable smaller fashion designers to access design tools that enable the creative designs of emerging fashion brands. However, the uncertainty of the ownership of such designs may present an obstacle to their commercialisation[18].
Luxury brands have started to investigate AI-based advertising campaign creation alongside virtual fashion collection development and digital customer experience design. The growing adoption of these practices demands that governments create official standards which will establish their proper legal framework. The system which controls ownership rights and defense mechanisms will probably lead to more legal conflicts about infringement and commercial usage of protected assets.
CASE LAW DISCUSSION
Thaler v. Perlmutter[19]
The legal battle between Thaler and Perlmutter stands as the most important case which addresses AI-created intellectual property rights. The dispute arose when Dr. Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork generated entirely by an artificial intelligence system known as the “Creativity Machine.” The application identified the AI system as the sole author of the work.
The United States Copyright Office rejected the application, concluding that copyright protection requires human authorship. The U.S. District Court confirmed its previous decision through a formal validation process. The court explained that copyright law has always protected human-created works because present-day laws fail to recognize artificial intelligence systems as independent authors.
The court case demonstrates how fashion companies encounter obstacles when they want to protect their AI-created designs because current copyright rules do not offer enough protection. The United States copyright protection system for fashion designs faces challenges because Thaler’s argument suggests AI-generated designs would not receive legal copyright protection.
Naruto v. Slater[20]
The human authorship rule receives additional understanding through the court case Naruto v. Slater which does not involve artificial intelligence technology. The case involved a photographer who discovered the monkey named Naruto had taken pictures with his camera. The research focused on determining if entities which do not possess human characteristics could receive copyright protection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that current laws do not enable animals to seek copyright protection through legal procedures. The facts of this case do not match AI-generated content but the fundamental principle from this situation applies to this case. Copyright law protects human creators according to legal interpretations which do not extend protection to entities that lack human characteristics. The decision has become a standard reference for AI work discussions because it shows that legal institutions still believe humans generate creative work.
Getty Images v. Stability AI[21]
The legal fight between Getty Images and Stability AI has introduced new questions about AI training methods which might operate outside legal boundaries. Getty Images claims Stability AI obtained millions of copyrighted images without authorization to develop its generative AI model through training.
The dispute highlights concerns regarding the relationship between AI-generated outputs and the copyrighted works used during training. The courts must decide if training programs which violate copyright laws will create major effects for businesses which use fashion as their main visual content.
The case shows fashion designers need to study AI impact on their business beyond the current discussions about who owns AI-generated content. The future legal framework of AI-assisted creativity will depend on three essential factors which include data acquisition methods and licensing systems and proper usage of protected content.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS / FINDINGS
The fashion industry now produces AI-generated designs which show a rising difference between modern technology and copyright laws that exist today. The legal systems which exist today still base their operations on ideas that originated during the period when people thought only humans could create things. The fundamental principles maintain their importance but modern technological systems create commercial value from their creative results which challenges these principles[22].
Current copyright laws show their biggest flaw because they never intended to safeguard self-generated creative work. The current system for fitting AI-generated works into traditional authorship rules generates unpredictable results which prove to be unsatisfactory. A complete denial of copyright protection may discourage innovation and investment. Fashion brands need legal protection for their AI-based design systems because they invest large amounts of money into these technologies which allow them to develop new products. The system needs complete protection but this requirement threatens to eliminate the basic human elements which form the core of copyright law[23].
A system which establishes different levels of human participation would create a better approach. Designers who actively participate in the creative process through their prompt development and their selection and editing of outputs deserve copyright protection. The works which emerge from non-human processes should remain outside the boundaries of copyright protection. The development of a specialised legal framework for AI-generated works may ultimately prove necessary. The framework needs to defend innovation incentives because copyright law should continue to serve its initial purpose[24].
CONCLUSION
The worldwide fashion sector experiences fast-moving changes because Artificial Intelligence creates new opportunities for creative development yet it produces difficulties for existing legal frameworks. The growing adoption of AI-generated fashion creations produces major doubts about who should get credit for these designs while questioning their creative value and their protection under copyright laws[25].
The current legal systems which operate in India together with foreign countries continue to base their copyright protection systems on human creative abilities. The legal system upholds human authorship through decisions made in Thaler v. Perlmutter and Naruto v. Slater yet Getty Images v. Stability AI shows how AI development creates new issues with copyrighted material usage which has not yet been decided[26]
Legal systems need to transform their operations because AI technology continues to penetrate fashion design operations while they work to defend creative work and guarantee suitable treatment for all stakeholders. The upcoming reforms need to establish specific rules about who owns creative works and how to defend them while keeping the core human values which copyright law supports. The main challenge for policymakers exists because they need to regulate technology while keeping the legal system up-to-date through rules which stay practical and follow fundamental principles[27].
REFERENCE(S):
[1] Jane C Ginsburg and Luke Ali Budiardjo, ‘Authors and Machines’ (2019) 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343.
[2] WIPO, Intellectual Property and the Fashion Industry (WIPO Publication No 947E).
[3] Copyright Act 1957, s 13.
[4] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299.
[5] Copyright Act 1957, s 17.
[6] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, as amended 28 September 1979).
[7] Pamela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185.
[8] US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).
[9] Thaler v Perlmutter 687 F Supp 3d 140 (DDC 2023).
[10] Jane C Ginsburg and Luke Ali Budiardjo, ‘Authors and Machines’ (2019) 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343.
[11] Pamela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185.
[12] Jane C Ginsburg and Luke Ali Budiardjo, ‘Authors and Machines’ (2019) 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343.
[13] Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [ongoing proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales]
[14] US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).
[15] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3) (UK).
[16] European Parliament, Artificial Intelligence Act (EU) 2024.
[17] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (2024).
[18] Pamela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185.
[19] Thaler v Perlmutter 687 F Supp 3d 140 (DDC 2023).
[20] Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir 2018).
[21] Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [ongoing proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales]
[22] Jane C Ginsburg and Luke Ali Budiardjo, ‘Authors and Machines’ (2019) 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343.
[23] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (2024).
[24] Pamela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185.
[25] Thaler v Perlmutter 687 F Supp 3d 140 (DDC 2023).
[26] Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir 2018).
[27] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (2024).
