Peru’s copyright authority rejects registration of AI-generated book

By Espinosa Bellido Abogados

Peru’s National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) has rejected an application to register a literary work created with generative artificial intelligence, in a decision addressing the role of human creativity in copyright protection.
The case concerns Universo Peregrino, a book whose applicant identified ChatGPT-4o as the tool used to generate the work.

Indecopi is Peru’s government agency responsible for matters including competition, consumer protection and intellectual property. Within the agency, the Directorate of Copyright is the administrative authority responsible for copyright and related rights. Its functions include administering the relevant registration system and handling administrative proceedings concerning copyright.

The decision in the case was issued by the Directorate of Copyright through Resolution No. 1111-2025/DDA on April 28, 2025. The application for registration of Universo Peregrino had been submitted on December 3, 2024. The proceeding concerned the possibility of entering the work in Peru’s National Register of Copyright and Related Rights.

According to information reported on the resolution, the applicant stated that ChatGPT-4o had generated the text of the book. The work was presented as a literary creation, but the Directorate examined whether it met the requirements for copyright protection under Peru’s copyright legislation.

The decision addressed the requirement of originality applicable to works protected by copyright. Under the Peruvian system, copyright protection is associated with original intellectual creations. The Directorate considered the circumstances in which material produced through an artificial intelligence system can be attributed to a human author for copyright purposes.

The authority determined that the work submitted in this case did not satisfy that requirement. The decision considered that the text had been generated through an automated process and that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient human creative contribution to the resulting work.

The case also addressed the role of instructions given to generative AI systems. According to accounts of the resolution, the Directorate considered that the use of prompts, by itself, does not establish authorship of the material generated in response to those instructions. The relevant consideration is the human intellectual contribution reflected in the protected expression.

The decision does not establish that the use of artificial intelligence automatically prevents copyright protection for a literary work. Rather, the assessment in the case concerned the particular circumstances of the work submitted for registration and the extent of the human contribution involved in its creation.

The decision was issued as Indecopi was developing its institutional approach to artificial intelligence. In November 2024, the agency created a working group for the implementation of artificial intelligence, tasked with supporting the development and implementation of AI tools to simplify internal processes and develop services for citizens.

In May 2025, Indecopi subsequently approved institutional guidelines for the ethical use of artificial intelligence. The guidelines establish principles for the use of AI within the agency and address issues including transparency, security and responsible use of the technology.