Mexico’s Supreme Court: AI Art Is Public Domain

Mexico City, Mexico — The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has ruled that no content generated by artificial intelligence systems in Mexico can be protected under copyright law. Instead, such works must be considered public domain and disseminated freely. The decision follows an attempt to register an AI-generated avatar with the National Institute of Copyright (Indautor).

The SCJN emphasized that only natural persons can be recognized as authors under Mexican law, and creations produced by AI lack the originality and human creativity required for copyright protection.

The Case of an AI-Generated Avatar

The legal dispute began in 2024 when Gerald García Báez, founder and CEO of Businessadvocacy—a firm specializing in automated legal assistance for brand disputes—attempted to register an AI-generated avatar under his name. The work, titled “Virtual Avatar: Gerald García Báez,” was a digital representation of García Báez intended for use in virtual, augmented, and mixed-reality environments.

García Báez explained that the avatar was created using the AI platform Leonardo, which generates images from user-provided photographs. However, Indautor rejected the registration, arguing that the content was artificially generated and not the product of human creation.

After appealing to the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) and losing, García Báez filed a direct amparo lawsuit, which the SCJN took up due to its broader implications for copyright law and AI in Mexico.

The SCJN’s Ruling

The court upheld Indautor’s refusal, citing Article 12 of the Federal Copyright Law, which states that only a “natural person who has created a literary or artistic work” can be considered an author. The ruling emphasized that copyright is intrinsically tied to human creativity, intellect, and emotion—qualities AI lacks.

The SCJN further clarified that AI systems, which operate on pre-existing data and algorithms, do not possess the “creativity and autonomy” necessary to produce original works under Mexican law.

Public Domain Implications

In its 104-point resolution, the court specified that AI-generated content is an “extension of humanity’s creative capacity” and thus automatically enters the public domain. Key points included:

• Point 100: AI-generated works cannot be registered and must be freely distributed, particularly if they “could benefit all of humanity.”
• Point 101: AI outputs are not original, as they rely on pre-existing training data, and thus cannot qualify for copyright protection.
• Point 102: While AI software and improvements can be patented or licensed, the content they generate remains public domain—even if users pay for enhanced tools.

Broader Legal Implications

The decision establishes that:

• AI-generated content cannot be monetized directly, though companies may charge for access to advanced AI tools.
• Works created with significant human intervention may still qualify for copyright, though the SCJN did not define the threshold for such cases.
• The ruling does not conflict with private contractual agreements between AI providers and users, as these operate separately from copyright law.

The case sets a precedent in Mexico’s evolving legal landscape regarding AI and intellectual property, ensuring that AI-generated works remain freely accessible to the public.