Copyright In AI Expansion Of Ancient Royal Edicts
I. Are Ancient Royal Edicts Protected by Copyright?
Ancient royal edicts (for example, decrees issued by emperors, kings, or dynasties centuries ago) are generally:
In the public domain (due to expiration of copyright), and
Often considered government works, which in many jurisdictions are not copyrightable.
For example:
In the United States, government works are not protected under 17 U.S.C. §105.
In India, government works are protected for 60 years, but ancient edicts fall far beyond that term.
Thus, the original ancient text itself is not protected.
However, the legal question arises when AI:
Restores damaged text,
Expands missing sections,
Reinterprets historical meaning,
Or creates a modern-language reconstruction.
II. Copyright in AI-Generated Expansion
The key issue becomes:
Is the AI-expanded version original enough to qualify for copyright?
To answer this, courts examine originality, human authorship, and derivative work standards.
Let us examine relevant case laws.
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Principle: Originality Requires Minimal Creativity
The U.S. Supreme Court held that mere labor ("sweat of the brow") is insufficient for copyright. There must be:
Independent creation
Minimal degree of creativity
Application to AI Expansion
If AI:
Merely compiles existing translations,
Mechanically reconstructs missing words using predictable patterns,
Then the output may lack originality.
However, if:
A human guides AI prompts creatively,
Selects among variations,
Adds interpretative commentary,
Then originality may exist.
Thus, a purely mechanical AI reconstruction of an edict likely fails Feist's originality threshold.
2. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
The Court recognized copyright in a photograph because the photographer exercised creative control.
The judgment emphasized:
Copyright protects “original intellectual conceptions of the author.”
Application to AI
If AI autonomously generates expanded content:
There may be no human "author."
If a historian:
Designs prompts,
Curates outputs,
Edits expansions,
Exercises intellectual judgment,
Then authorship may vest in that human.
Thus, AI expansion of royal edicts is copyrightable only if sufficient human intellectual conception exists.
3. Naruto v. Slater
Principle: Non-Humans Cannot Hold Copyright
This “Monkey Selfie” case held that animals cannot be authors under U.S. law.
The reasoning has been widely applied in AI debates:
Non-human creators cannot own copyright.
Copyright presumes human agency.
Application
If an AI independently reconstructs an ancient edict:
The AI cannot own copyright.
If no human exercised creative control, the work may fall into the public domain.
This is highly relevant for automated AI reconstructions of inscriptions.
4. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Principle: Exact Reproductions of Public Domain Works Are Not Copyrightable
The court held that:
Faithful photographic reproductions of public domain paintings lack originality.
Application to AI Reconstruction
If AI:
Faithfully reproduces ancient inscriptions,
Accurately restores missing text without creative embellishment,
Then the result may not be copyrightable.
But if AI:
Imagines missing sections creatively,
Produces interpretive expansions,
That may qualify as a new derivative work.
5. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
Principle: “Modicum of Creativity” Standard (India)
The Indian Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine and adopted a creativity threshold similar to Feist.
It held that:
Copy-edited judicial opinions may receive limited copyright,
But purely mechanical tasks are not protected.
Application
If scholars use AI to:
Annotate ancient edicts,
Add historical interpretation,
Provide analytical commentary,
Such contributions may be protected.
But simple digitization or formatting would not qualify.
6. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening
Principle: Author’s Own Intellectual Creation (EU Standard)
The Court of Justice of the EU held that copyright exists when the work reflects:
The author's own intellectual creation.
Application
AI-expanded edicts must reflect:
Human creative choices,
Intellectual judgment,
Personal imprint.
If the AI output is statistically generated without identifiable human creativity, EU protection may fail.
7. Thaler v. Perlmutter
Principle: AI-Generated Works Without Human Authorship Are Not Copyrightable
The court held that:
A work generated entirely by AI without human involvement cannot be registered.
Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.
Application
If an AI autonomously expands an ancient royal edict:
The output cannot be copyrighted in the U.S.
Unless a human substantially contributed creatively.
This case is central in modern AI-copyright law.
III. Derivative Works and Ancient Edicts
If AI expands an edict by:
Adding fictional dialogue,
Filling missing historical context creatively,
Translating poetically,
Then it may qualify as a derivative work.
However:
The underlying edict remains public domain.
Protection extends only to the new creative additions.
Others may still use the original edict freely.
IV. Moral Rights and Cultural Heritage Issues
In some jurisdictions (e.g., France, Germany):
Moral rights protect integrity and attribution.
Cultural heritage laws may restrict modification of national artifacts.
Although ancient kings have no living heirs, state heritage bodies may regulate:
Physical inscriptions,
Digital reproductions of archaeological artifacts.
This creates an additional regulatory layer separate from copyright.
V. Key Legal Scenarios
Scenario A: AI Restores Missing Stone Text Using Predictive Algorithms
Likely result:
No copyright (mechanical reconstruction).
Falls under Bridgeman and Feist principles.
Scenario B: Historian Uses AI to Creatively Reimagine Lost Sections
Likely result:
Copyright in added creative text.
Protected as derivative work.
Scenario C: Fully Autonomous AI Expansion Without Human Control
Likely result:
No copyright under Thaler and Naruto principles.
Scenario D: AI + Substantial Human Editorial Refinement
Likely result:
Copyright may vest in human editor.
VI. Broader Jurisdictional Comparison
| Jurisdiction | Human Authorship Required? | AI-Only Work Protected? |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Yes | No |
| India | Yes | Uncertain but likely No |
| EU | Yes (intellectual creation) | Likely No |
| UK | Special provision for computer-generated works (author = arranger), but under debate |
VII. Conclusion
AI expansion of ancient royal edicts sits at the intersection of:
Public domain doctrine
Human authorship requirement
Derivative work law
Cultural heritage regulation
The controlling principles from:
Feist (originality),
Burrow-Giles (human intellectual conception),
Naruto (non-human cannot author),
Bridgeman (faithful reproduction not protected),
Eastern Book Company (modicum of creativity),
Infopaq (intellectual creation),
Thaler (AI-only not protected),
collectively establish that:
👉 Ancient royal edicts are free to use.
👉 AI expansions are protected only if humans exercise creative intellectual control.
👉 Fully autonomous AI reconstructions likely fall into the public domain.
RELATED Blog
comments