2025 edition of the ALAI European Authors’ Right Award awarded to Erik Mnatsakanyan

The 2025 edition of the ALAI European Authors’ Right Award, supported by GESAC, was awarded to Erik Mnatsakanyan for his essay “Les oeuvres générées par intelligence artificielle : inévitablement considérées comme oeuvres dérivées ?”

Erik Mnatsakanyan

The essay title translates to English as: “AI-Generated works: Inevitably considered derivative works?”

Mr. Erik Mnatsakanyan studies at Nantes University (France), where he is completing is second master in Intellectual Property Law.

Read the winning essay here (only available in French).

Below is an interview with Erik about his essay and his thoughts on AI and its impact on the creative sector:

  • What inspired you to focus your research on the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law, particularly regarding AI-generated works?
    I decided to write an article on this subject because artificial intelligence is taking on a central role in our lives these days, particularly from the point of view of artistic creation. Many established artists, but above all amateurs and ordinary people, are using AI to generate graphic, literary, musical or audiovisual works, giving rise to a new area of artistic creation that needs to be addressed by intellectual property law. The importance that this field has taken on in just a few years is phenomenal, and it is forcing us, the lawyers, to take up the issue in order to provide an appropriate and logical legal framework to regulate practices and respond to the problems that it generates.
  • In your view, why has the question of derivative works become so central in the context of AI-generated creations?
    The issue of derivative works is central to artistic creation using artificial intelligence, because AI inevitably needs to draw on previous references and be inspired by pre-existing works (contained in its data set) in order to generate new works based on requests provided by the AI user (prompts). However, the integration into the AI’s data set and the use by the latter of works protected by copyright in order to generate new works infringes the rights of previous authors and therefore raises problems in terms of intellectual property.
  • How significant is the role of the human user (the one providing prompts or instructions) in attributing authorship or originality to an AI-generated work?
    The importance of the human user of AI is particularly great because it is thanks to him and his work that the work generated by AI can potentially obtain copyright protection. Indeed, thanks to his many detailed, precise and personal prompts, the AI user will be able to argue that the work he has produced thanks to AI is an original work bearing the imprint of his personality, that it reflects free and creative choices on his part exercised through the writing of prompts, and that consequently it deserves to obtain copyright protection. Furthermore, the involvement and role played by the AI user in the creation of the work may weigh in the balance in favour of granting copyright ownership of the work to the user rather than to the other protagonists, as his importance in the creative process will be greater.
  • Why is it so tricky to figure out who owns an artwork created by AI?
        The issue of copyright ownership in a work generated using artificial intelligence is a complicated one, as many players are involved to varying degrees in the creative process. In fact, there are various people in the creative chain, with varying degrees of involvement, such as the producers of the data set that enables the AI to train itself and on the basis of which the AI will generate the works, the designers of the artificial intelligence programme, the algorithms, etc., or the user of the AI programme who writes the prompts and therefore provides the ideas that will guide the AI in its execution. There is also the question of the authors of previous works, from which the AI has drawn in order to create new works. Moreover, there is the possibility of attributing ownership of the rights to the AI itself, thus giving machines a new legal personality and revolutionising the current system. The question of ownership is complicated because each of these protagonists has a legitimate claim to copyright. However, certain logical and legal arguments make it possible to rule out certain possibilities and offer a solution to this problem.
  • If an AI uses lots of existing art to learn, should the original artists get credit or payment if their style shows up in the AI’s work?
    In my opinion, from the moment a pre-existing work, still protected by copyright, is incorporated into the data set of an artificial intelligence programme and this work is used by the AI to create a new work, it is essential to respect the economic and moral prerogatives of the previous artist, otherwise there is infringement. The prior author’s right to authorship must be respected, and it must be clearly stated that the work generated by AI has been created on the basis of such and such a pre-existing work by such and such an artist. The right to respect for the integrity of the prior work must also be respected, and a new work must not be created that would infringe this right. The economic rights of the author of the earlier work must also be respected, and the right to re-use the work must therefore be negotiated, often in return for financial compensation, whether a fixed sum or a percentage of the profits made by the derivative work. In conclusion, it is essential to obtain the consent of the author of the earlier work and to remunerate him if he so requests, a process known as clearance of rights.
  • Who do you think should be called the “author” of an AI-generated piece: the person using the AI, the programmer, or someone else?
    In my view, the protagonist who is most entitled to obtain copyright ownership is the user of the artificial intelligence programme, because it is the user who will have the greatest influence on the final result of the work generated; it is his artistic vision, his conception, his personality that will be anchored in the work created by the AI, provided of course that the user writes multiple prompts that are complete, detailed, precise and particularly personal, thus profoundly influencing the work. Moreover, if the user carries out post-production work, once the work has been generated by the AI, and makes various modifications, additions, etc. using other artistic tools, then he or she will be even more entitled to be considered the author and holder of the rights to the work created thanks to artificial intelligence.
  • How do you think the rules should change as AI becomes more common in art and writing? What recommendations would you make to lawmakers or industry stakeholders to ensure a fair balance between innovation and the protection of original creators in the era of AI?
    I think it is imperative for legislators and professionals in the creative arts sector to embrace the major developments that are taking place thanks to the democratization of AI use by the general public. There should be absolutely no attempt to limit or denigrate the use of AI, but rather to provide the best possible framework for this field through clear, comprehensive and precise legislation, and to try to strike a fair balance between the interests of AI designers, users and pre-existing authors whose works are taken up and used by AI. Following the example of computer-assisted music creation and photography, which were criticized at the time of their arrival and in which there was a debate about whether or not copyright should be granted, we must try to get past the initial appriorities that put people off and try to understand this new field of creation as well as possible.
  • What’s one thing you wish more people understood about AI and copyright?
What I want people to understand is that the new field of creation spawned by the arrival of generative AIs is not a new Eldorado where no legal or ethical rules need apply. These technological advances and this new field of creation must not be perceived as lawless zones where you can do whatever you want, without respecting the interests of the previous authors whose works are used. AI users and designers need to show consideration and respect, in order to strike a balance between everyone’s interests.