A Moscow court has issued a landmark ruling that could set a precedent for digital art: authors using neural networks to create images have been denied copyright protection. The case involved two works — "Mona Lisa with Wine" and "Statue of Liberty with Wine" — which the plaintiff attempted to protect from commercial use.
Case Details: From the Mona Lisa to T-Shirts
The plaintiff argued that he did not simply copy well-known images but reworked them using artificial intelligence. In the case of Leonardo da Vinci's painting, the neural network altered the facial expression, facial contours, and hair volume, adding bags under the character's eyes and a wine glass in hand. A similar transformation occurred with the Statue of Liberty — its torch was replaced with the same wine glass.
Based on these images, the entrepreneur released a series of merchandise: t-shirts, hoodies, and thermal mugs. The author of the original concepts demanded compensation for the infringement of his rights, but the court sided with the defendant.
Court Position: Technique Over Creativity
The court's key argument was the lack of human creative input. The judges agreed with the defendant's position: minor changes to original images cannot be considered the result of creative activity. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a neural network lacks consciousness and is incapable of exerting creative effort.
The ideas embedded in the images — messy hair, puffy face, replacing attributes with a wine glass — were deemed by the court to be neither new nor uncommon in art and media. Issuing commands to the AI to apply an existing idea was classified as a technical process rather than a creative act.
Significance of the Ruling for the Industry
This ruling underscores an important principle: copyright protects specifically human creative labor, not the mechanical use of tools. Even if the result appears unique, the process of its creation must include a conscious creative contribution. In this case, the court determined that working with the neural network within the scope of this case did not go beyond the technical implementation of someone else's idea.
The decision may influence the future of digital art and the legal assessment of works created with AI. It poses a question for artists and developers: where is the line between using a tool and creating a new work?
