In the evolving landscape of intellectual property law, the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright presents unique challenges. The case of “Suryast,” an AI-generated image, epitomizes these challenges, highlighting the different registration processes in the United States and Canada and the unresolved Canadian law of AI authorship. This blog explores the registration attempts for “Suryast” in both jurisdictions, the specific mechanisms for copyright registration and reconsideration, and the potential future complexities in copyright registration akin to those in trademark law.
The “Suryast” Case: An Overview
“Suryast” is a two-dimensional artwork created using the RAGHAV AI Painting App. Ankit Sahni, an intellectual property lawyer from New Delhi, claims co-authorship of the image along with the AI. The image is a stylized adaptation of a photograph taken by Sahni, transformed by the AI into a style reminiscent of Vincent van Gogh’s “The Starry Night.”
United States: A Strict Stance on Human Authorship
In the United States, the Copyright Office has consistently upheld the principle that copyright protection requires human authorship. This was clearly demonstrated in the case of “Suryast.” Despite Sahni’s claims of co-authorship, the U.S. Copyright Office refused to register the work, citing a lack of human authorship (Microsoft Word – 2023-12-11_SURYAST Review Board Decision Letter_final (copyright.gov)).
Mechanisms for Copyright Registration and Reconsideration in the U.S.:
- Initial Application:
- Submission: Applicants submit a completed application, a non-refundable fee, and a deposit copy of the work to the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Review: The Copyright Office reviews the application to determine if the work meets the criteria for copyright protection, including originality and human authorship.
- Reconsideration Requests:
- First Request for Reconsideration: If the application is refused, the applicant may file a first request for reconsideration within three months of the refusal, providing additional arguments and evidence.
- Second Request for Reconsideration: If the first request is also refused, the applicant can file a second request for reconsideration, reviewed by the Copyright Office Review Board.
- Judicial Review: If the second request is denied, the applicant may seek judicial review in federal court.
In Sahni’s case, both his first and second requests for reconsideration were denied, with the Review Board affirming that “Suryast” did not contain sufficient human authorship to warrant copyright protection.
Canada: A More Flexible Approach?
CIPO issued a registration for “Suryast” listing Sahni and the RAGHAV AI as co-authors. This administrative registration is not a decision that AI may legally be an author: CIPO does not substantively examine originality or authorship. The registration is being challenged by the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) in Federal Court proceeding T-1717-24. Music Publishers Canada has been granted leave to intervene, and the proceeding remains pending as of September 2026.
Mechanisms for Copyright Registration and Reconsideration in Canada:
- Initial Application:
- Submission: Applicants submit the prescribed application and fee to CIPO. Unlike the U.S. process, Canada does not require a deposit copy of the work.
- Review: CIPO conducts an administrative review of the application. Unlike the U.S., CIPO’s process does not typically involve substantive examination of authorship criteria.
- Expungement or Rectification:
- Challenges to Registration: Third parties can apply to the Federal Court for expungement or rectification of a copyright registration. In the case of “Suryast,” CIPPIC has filed such an application to either rectify the registration to remove AI authorship or expunge it entirely.
Future Implications: Toward a More Complex Landscape?
As AI continues to evolve, the legal frameworks governing copyright and intellectual property will need to adapt. The requirement for human originality in copyright protection may evolve to reflect complexities similar to those in trademark law, where distinctiveness is key.
In trademark registration, the requirement for distinctiveness ensures that a mark can identify the source of goods or services. Similarly, copyright law may develop stricter standards for originality, emphasizing human creativity. This shift could complicate the registration process, requiring more detailed examinations of the creative contributions of humans versus AI.
Closing Remarks
The “Suryast” case underscores the current divergence in how the U.S. and Canada approach AI-generated works within the framework of copyright law. While the U.S. Copyright Office applies a human-authorship requirement through substantive examination, the Canadian registration does not resolve the issue because CIPO’s process is administrative. The pending Federal Court challenge may provide judicial guidance. As these legal landscapes continue to evolve, the future of AI and copyright will likely demand nuanced and sophisticated legal interpretations, potentially making copyright registration as complex as trademark registration.
At Soundmark Law, we are committed to staying at the forefront of these developments, ensuring our clients navigate these complexities with informed and strategic guidance. Whether dealing with AI-generated works or traditional creative endeavors, we can help clients document human contributions, assess uncertainty, and use contracts and registrations appropriately. Registration does not guarantee that every AI-generated element is protected.
