Defending Human Authorship: Overcoming IPOPHL Rejections for AI-Assisted Creative Works in the Philippines
Introduction: Why AI-Assisted Assets Get Rejected and Why Studios Should Care
Entertainment and gaming studios increasingly use generative AI to accelerate concept art, textures, character variations, voice, music beds, and marketing materials. A common legal risk appears when a studio seeks copyright-related recognition (or relies on copyright in enforcement) but faces denial or skepticism on the ground that the output lacks human authorship or that the applicant cannot show sufficient human creative contribution.
Philippine copyright protection is not centered on registration; it is centered on original intellectual creation that exists from the moment of creation. Still, denials or refusals at the administrative level can affect enforcement posture, investor comfort, licensing, and takedown actions. The goal for studios is to document and present the work as a protectable human-created expression, even when AI was used as a tool.
Governing Law: Copyright Protection Turns on Original Human Expression, Not on Paper Filings
Under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293, effective 1998), copyright protects original intellectual creations and protection exists from the moment of creation, not from registration or publication. The Supreme Court has reiterated that musical and other literary and artistic works are protected “by the sole fact of their creation,” and that assignments to a collecting society do not depend on registration formalities to be valid and enforceable.
In Cosac, Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (G.R. No. 222537, 2023), the Court stressed that copyright protection arises upon creation, and that the law does not require registration as a condition for protection or enforceability of the rights themselves.
Core Standard for AI-Assisted Works: The “Idea vs. Expression” Line and the Need for Human Skill and Labor
The central doctrinal issue for AI-assisted assets is whether the claimant can point to human expression (protectable) rather than only ideas, directions, or concepts (not enough by themselves). The Supreme Court has explained that authorship is tied to the person who transforms an idea into a tangible form of expression through skill or labor; merely providing general concepts is insufficient.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Tupaz (G.R. No. 197335, 2020), the Court held that to create something entitled to copyright requires more than giving ideas and concepts; the author is the one who uses skill and labor to concretize the envisioned output into a tangible expression. This reasoning is especially relevant to AI pipelines where one team member “directs” while another (or the model) produces the fixed output.
What “Human Contribution” Means for Studios Using Generative AI
For AI-assisted creative works, the defensible position is usually that AI is a tool, while identifiable humans made the protectable expressive decisions. The question becomes evidentiary: can the studio show that people—not the model alone—produced the final protected expression?
Human contribution is easier to defend when the studio can show one or more of the following:
1) Human-created source expression: sketches, drafts, model sheets, music motifs, scripts, storyboards, concept thumbnails, or original designs created first by humans and later iterated with AI.
2) Human selection and arrangement: humans curated outputs from many generations, chose particular elements, and arranged them into a final composite (e.g., a UI pack, environment set, marketing key art set, or character sheet set).
3) Human modification and finishing: substantial paint-over, photobashing, retopology, manual rigging, hand animation passes, compositing, color grading, manual editing, or reorchestration after AI generation.
4) Human creative control visible in iterations: iterative prompt logs alone may not be enough if they show only general instructions. But when combined with successive drafts showing consistent artistic direction and human-made revisions, they support authorship.
Presumptions and Proof: How Attribution and Authorship Are Usually Shown
When a natural person’s name is indicated as author in the usual manner, the law provides a presumption of authorship unless proven otherwise. Republic Act No. 8293 recognizes this presumption of authorship as an evidentiary aid. For studios, this makes proper internal crediting and documentation important when authorship may be questioned.
Studios should also be cautious about overclaiming. In Juan v. Juan (G.R. No. 221732, 2017), the Supreme Court emphasized that copyright ownership depends on creation by the original author; it is not established by mere registration if the registrant is not the creator. The decision also clarifies that copyright and trademark are distinct rights, so brand strategies must treat them separately.
Common Reasons for Denial (and How to Respond)
While registration is not the source of protection, denials typically follow a few patterns relevant to AI-assisted outputs. Below are frequent grounds and suggested responses aligned with Supreme Court doctrine and Republic Act No. 8293 principles.
Table: Denial Ground vs. Studio Response Strategy
Ground raised | Why it matters legally | What to submit / show
“No human author” / “AI generated” | Copyright is tied to human creative expression; mere concepts are insufficient. | Identify human creators; provide drafts, paint-overs, edit files, project files, time-stamped iterations; show human finishing work consistent with Heirs of Tupaz (2020).
“Only ideas / prompts were provided” | Ideas are not protected; expression is. | Demonstrate expression authored by humans (line work, composition, animation curves, 3D edits); show decisions beyond general direction.
“Applicant is not the creator” | Authorship and ownership do not arise from mere claim or filing. | Provide chain of title: employment clauses, work-for-hire style provisions, written assignments; confirm the actual artists and their contributions (see Juan v. Juan, 2017, on creation vs. registration).
“Registration is required to enforce” | Protection arises from creation; registration is not a condition. | Cite that works are protected from creation, and formalities are not prerequisites for protection; align approach with Cosac v. FILSCAP(2023) on protection from creation.
Procedural and Documentation Measures Studios Should Institutionalize
Studios can materially improve outcomes by treating AI-assisted creation as a documented creative process, similar to animation or VFX pipelines.
Recommended Studio Playbook (Documentation and Governance)
1) Maintain a “human authorship dossier” per asset: include initial human sketches, briefs, and art direction notes; generation logs; intermediate outputs; final layered files (PSD, AEP, BLEND, MA/MB, project files); and human edit history.
2) Attribute authorship clearly: credit the individuals who made the protectable expressive decisions. Republic Act No. 8293 provides a presumption of authorship where the author’s name appears in the usual manner.
3) Separate roles: “concept contributor” vs. “expression author”: align credits and contracts with the doctrine in Heirs of Tupaz (2020) that supplying ideas is not the same as authoring expression.
4) Use written agreements for ownership and licensing: for contractors and collaborators, ensure assignment clauses cover the final edited outputs and derivative versions. This avoids disputes where the studio is not the natural person author but is the rights holder by contract.
5) Consider dual protection planning: if the asset is also used as a brand identifier (game title, logo, character name), evaluate trademark strategy separately because copyright and trademark serve different legal functions, as highlighted in Juan v. Juan (2017).
Typical Scenarios in Entertainment and Gaming (and How to Position Human Authorship)
Scenario A: AI concept art turned into final key art
If artists generate multiple AI concepts and then produce a final composite via paint-over, custom lighting, manual anatomy correction, original background elements, and typography layout, the studio should present the final work as a human-authored expression with AI-assisted references. The stronger the “before and after,” the easier to show human skill and labor.
Scenario B: AI-generated textures used in a 3D environment pack
If the raw texture is AI-generated but the environment pack includes manual UV mapping decisions, material setup, procedural tweaks, and curated selection and arrangement across an asset set, document those human decisions and the final authored arrangement.
Scenario C: AI music bed later arranged and recorded
Where a generated motif is transformed by human arrangement, instrumentation choices, structure edits, and mixing/mastering, the final track’s protectable expression is easier to attribute to human authorship. For enforcement, remember that protection arises from creation and not from registration formalities, consistent with Cosac v. FILSCAP(2023).
Risk Notes: Avoid Overclaiming and Prepare for Disputes
Studios should avoid claiming authorship where their role is limited to giving general instructions or ideas. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heirs of Tupaz (2020) can be used against a claimant who cannot show tangible expressive labor. Likewise, as Juan v. Juan (2017) illustrates, registration or certificates are not a substitute for proof of actual creation by the claimed author.
Conclusion: A Defensible Path for AI-Assisted Creativity Is Evidence of Human Expression
For entertainment and gaming studios, overcoming skepticism toward AI-assisted assets is less about arguing that “AI outputs are protected” and more about proving that humans authored the protectable expression. The most reliable approach is operational: document the creative process, identify the real human authors, preserve drafts and edit histories, and paper the chain of title. This aligns with Philippine doctrine that copyright protects expression fixed through human skill and labor, while mere ideas or concepts alone do not establish authorship.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
