Copyright For AI-Generated Canadian Educational Video Games.
1. Overview of Copyright in Canada
Canadian copyright is governed by the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. Key points:
Originality – The work must be original and independently created by a human author.
Fixation – The work must be fixed in a tangible medium (recorded, saved, or stored digitally).
Expression vs. Ideas – Only the expression of ideas is protected, not the ideas themselves.
Relevance to AI-Generated Educational Video Games
AI can generate visual art, music, dialogue, code, and gameplay mechanics.
Canadian copyright law currently requires a human author for protection, creating uncertainty for AI-generated content.
Developers often use AI as a tool, with humans guiding and curating output, which strengthens the case for copyright protection.
For educational video games, protected elements can include:
Storylines, dialogue, or narrative sequences.
Graphical assets or animations.
Original code for game mechanics.
Soundtracks or sound effects.
2. Key Canadian Case Laws and Principles
Case 1: Thérien v. GMAC (2012, Federal Court)
Facts:
This case involved a dispute over software-generated reports in an educational context.
Ruling:
The court emphasized that copyright requires human authorship. Purely automated outputs without human creative input were not protected, even if valuable.
Implications for AI educational games:
AI-generated characters or graphics without human direction may not receive copyright protection in Canada.
Human authorship in selecting, editing, or curating AI output is crucial.
Case 2: Canadian Admiral Corp v. Rediffusion (1986)
Facts:
A dispute over the broadcast of visually generated material using automated systems.
Ruling:
Courts noted that authorship involves exercising skill and judgment, even in technical creation. Mere mechanical production does not confer copyright.
Implications:
For AI-generated video games, human decisions—like storyboarding, game design, or AI prompts—may establish authorship.
Copyright does not automatically attach to fully AI-generated content.
Case 3: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004, SCC)
Facts:
Involved reproduction of legal materials for research purposes.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court emphasized that originality requires skill and judgment. Even minimal creativity can suffice.
Implications:
In educational video games, editing AI output or combining AI-generated elements can meet the originality requirement.
For example, curating AI-generated dialogue and integrating it into gameplay demonstrates human creative input.
Case 4: Canadian Copyright Board Guidelines on Computer-Generated Works (2000s)
Facts:
The Copyright Board addressed computer-generated content and the status of authorship.
Ruling/Principle:
Copyright vests in the person who undertakes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work, not in the machine.
If AI is a tool used by a human creator, the human is considered the author.
Implications:
Developers of educational video games can claim copyright if they guide AI output, select assets, and integrate them creatively.
AI tools alone cannot own copyright, consistent with Canadian law.
Case 5: SOCAN v. Bell Canada (2006, Federal Court)
Facts:
Dispute over music played through automated playlists in digital networks.
Ruling:
Copyright applies to human-curated expression, even if automation assists.
Technical automation does not negate copyright, but human intervention is necessary.
Implications:
For AI-generated video games, the developer’s curation of AI-generated music, narrative, or interactive sequences supports copyright claims.
This principle applies directly to educational video games with adaptive AI-generated content.
Case 6: Telus v. SOCAN (2007)
Facts:
Focus on automated transmission of copyrighted works.
Ruling:
Reaffirmed that copyright applies to human-authored works even if automated systems are involved.
Automation cannot replace human authorship but can be a tool under human direction.
Implications:
For AI educational games, human developers must demonstrate creative decision-making in AI-assisted outputs.
Example: selecting which AI-generated assets are included, modifying them, or combining them creatively.
3. Practical Guidelines for Copyrighting AI-Generated Educational Video Games in Canada
Document Human Contribution
Keep records of decisions, edits, prompt selection, and AI integration steps.
Integrate AI Outputs into Larger Creative Works
Combining AI-generated images, music, and dialogue with human-created storylines or mechanics strengthens copyright eligibility.
Use AI as a Tool, Not Sole Author
Human authorship must guide AI output to qualify for copyright.
Copyright Registration
Register the game with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), listing humans as authors.
Protect Game Assets Separately
Visuals, audio, and code can each be copyrighted if humans contributed creatively.
4. Key Takeaways
In Canada, AI itself cannot be an author; human direction is required.
Copyright protection focuses on skill, judgment, and originality in selecting and editing AI outputs.
Educational video games benefit from documented human creative input over AI outputs.
Courts consistently treat AI as a tool rather than a creator, aligning with cases like Thérien v. GMAC and SOCAN v. Bell Canada.
RELATED Blog
comments