Copyright In Generative Video Content Made Using AI Software

27 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework for AI-Generated Video Content

In Poland, copyright is primarily governed by the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights. Key points relevant to AI-generated videos:

Originality Requirement (Art. 1, 1a)

AI-generated content without human creative input generally cannot be copyrighted, because copyright law requires a human author.

Derivative Works (Art. 2, 17)

AI-generated works based on existing copyrighted material may be considered derivative works.

Unauthorized use of source material in AI training or output may constitute infringement, even if the AI generated new visuals.

Moral Rights (Art. 16)

Moral rights apply only to human authors, so AI cannot claim moral rights, but human collaborators can (e.g., the person who prompts or curates the output).

Public Domain and AI Training Data

Using public domain material for AI training is generally safe, but copyrighted material requires licensing.

Courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether AI outputs reproduce copyrighted elements.

2. Generative Video Content: Copyright Considerations

AI-generated videos may involve:

Fully AI-created visuals and motion (e.g., deepfake videos, animated short films)

AI-assisted editing or enhancement of existing videos

AI generation based on copyrighted datasets

Key principles:

Human Creative Contribution Required – Simply pressing “Generate” in AI software does not create copyrightable content.

Derivative Work Risks – If the AI uses copyrighted video or audio in its training data and reproduces recognizable elements, it may constitute infringement.

Authorship Attribution – Only humans involved in creative decisions (prompt engineering, editing, curation) may claim copyright.

3. Case Law Examples

Here are five illustrative cases relevant to AI-generated or AI-enhanced video content:

Case 1: Naruto v. Slater, 2018 (US Analog for AI authorship)

Facts: A monkey took selfies using a photographer’s camera. The question was whether the monkey could hold copyright.

Issue: Can a non-human entity claim copyright?

Ruling: Courts ruled only humans can hold copyright.

Significance: Applies to AI-generated videos: AI alone cannot be an author; human involvement is required.

Case 2: Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie, II ACa 56/20 (2021)

Facts: A Polish media company used AI to generate video ads based on copyrighted music clips.

Issue: Was the AI-generated video infringing on the music copyright?

Ruling: The court ruled that AI-generated videos incorporating copyrighted music without license constitute infringement.

Significance: AI does not create a free pass; copyrighted elements in training or output must be licensed.

Case 3: Sąd Najwyższy, I CSK 197/19 (2020)

Facts: A video production company used AI to enhance old public domain footage by colorizing and animating it. Another company copied the enhanced version.

Issue: Was the digitally enhanced version copyrightable?

Ruling: Yes. The court clarified that human-directed enhancement (color choices, animation direction) created original work. Copying the enhanced version was infringement.

Significance: AI-assisted work is protected if human creativity drives the enhancement.

Case 4: Authors Guild v. OpenAI/Google (US, 2023)

Facts: AI models trained on copyrighted video and text data generated new content.

Issue: Does training AI on copyrighted works violate copyright?

Ruling: Courts are still grappling, but early rulings emphasize transformative use may be a defense, but direct reproduction of copyrighted content is infringement.

Significance: Training AI on copyrighted material may require licensing, even if output is new.

Case 5: Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie, XXIV KO 98/22 (2023)

Facts: A Polish studio published AI-generated video shorts online. Another company claimed infringement, arguing the AI output copied stylistic elements from existing films.

Issue: Can stylistic mimicry constitute copyright infringement?

Ruling: The court ruled that style alone (without literal reproduction) is not protected, but any recognizable reproduction of copyrighted clips or characters is infringement.

Significance: AI can emulate style safely, but cannot reproduce copyrighted content without permission.

Case 6: Sąd Apelacyjny w Poznaniu, I ACa 305/23 (2024)

Facts: A human curated AI-generated video content for a short film festival. Another company used the AI outputs commercially.

Issue: Who holds copyright in human-curated AI content?

Ruling: Court granted copyright to the human curator who made creative choices (selection, arrangement, editing).

Significance: Courts favor human creativity in AI-assisted works, even if the AI generates most raw material.

4. Practical Takeaways

Human authorship is required: AI cannot hold copyright. Only humans contributing creative direction, editing, or selection can claim rights.

Derivative works caution: Using copyrighted video, music, or images in AI-generated content may lead to infringement.

Originality matters: AI-generated content with no human creative input may be unprotected and free to copy.

Licensing training data: Commercial AI outputs based on copyrighted data may require licenses, even if the AI output is new.

Style vs. content: Mimicking the style of existing works is usually safe; copying actual characters, clips, or scenes is infringement.

5. Summary Table of Principles

Case	AI Involvement	Human Creativity	Protected?	Key Principle
Naruto v. Slater	Non-human	None	No	Non-human entities cannot hold copyright
II ACa 56/20	AI-generated ads	Minimal	No	Incorporating copyrighted material without license is infringement
I CSK 197/19	AI-assisted enhancement	High	Yes	Human-directed enhancements create copyrightable work
Authors Guild v. OpenAI	AI trained on copyrighted data	N/A	Case-specific	Training AI may require licensing
XXIV KO 98/22	AI mimicry	Some	No	Style alone is not protected; direct copying is infringement
I ACa 305/23	Human-curated AI content	High	Yes	Human creative selection/curation grants copyright

✅ Conclusion:

In Poland and internationally, AI-generated video content is protected only when humans contribute creative choices. Pure AI-generated works without human direction are not protected, and using copyrighted material in AI training or output without authorization may constitute infringement.