Peru: Indecopi rejects copyright registration for three AI-generated images

By Espinosa Bellido Abogados

The decision addresses the increasingly relevant question of when the use of generative AI can coexist with copyright protection and emphasizes the need to demonstrate a human creative contribution to the protected work.

The cases concerned three images submitted by the same applicant: “Viejo Callejón de un solo caño,” “Café del Lunes” and “Lomo Saltado en Taberna.” The applications had initially been rejected, and the applicant appealed the decisions before the Intellectual Property Specialized Chamber of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi).

During the proceedings, the applicant argued that AI had been used as a supporting tool rather than as an autonomous creator. According to the arguments presented, the applicant had made creative decisions concerning composition, perspective, lighting, colors, textures, selection of generated results and final editing.

In the case of “Viejo Callejón de un solo caño,” the applicant stated that they had established the atmosphere and visual narrative, incorporated architectural elements and repeatedly modified the prompts to guide the image toward the intended result. Similar creative decisions were claimed in relation to the other two images.

The Chamber nevertheless found that the applicant had not provided evidence sufficient to verify the degree of human participation or the alleged substantial creative control over the final results. It also considered the information contained in the registration applications themselves and concluded that the three images had been developed entirely through artificial intelligence systems.

Indecopi therefore confirmed the first-instance decisions and declared the three appeals unfounded. The Chamber reiterated that copyright protects personal and original intellectual creations and that, for a creation to qualify for protection, it must be the result of human creative activity. Works generated exclusively by automated systems, algorithms or artificial intelligence therefore cannot qualify for copyright protection under this criterion.

The decision does not establish that the mere use of AI prevents copyright protection. Rather, the relevant issue identified by the authority is whether a sufficient human creative contribution can be demonstrated in the protected result. In these cases, the applicant maintained that such intervention existed, but the Chamber found that it had not been adequately evidenced.

The ruling corresponds to the second and final administrative instance before Indecopi. The decisions may still be challenged through judicial proceedings. Indecopi has made the three resolutions publicly available under case numbers 1583-2026/TPI, 1584-2026/TPI and 1585-2026/TPI.

The Peruvian cases add to the growing body of administrative and judicial decisions addressing authorship and copyright protection in works produced with generative AI. Their relevance extends beyond the specific images involved, particularly because they place emphasis not only on the existence of human input during the creative process, but also on the ability to demonstrate that input and its relationship with the final work.