As AI begins generating poetry, paintings, and code with minimal human input, the law struggles to keep pace. In the UAE—one of the few countries with a Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence—the copyright framework remains grounded in a human-centric model. Federal Law No. 38 of 2021 defines a “Work” broadly, covering any creative output regardless of form or purpose, but limits “authorship” to a person—making human identity central.

This article argues that UAE law, though not yet updated for generative AI, should be interpreted to recognize authorship where a human uses AI as a creative medium and exercises meaningful control. In such cases, the machine is not a creator, but a tool—like a brush, camera, or editing software. So long as the final expression reflects the user’s intellectual direction and surpasses a merely de minimis contribution, the human should be deemed the Author.

Under Article 1, “Author” means a person who creates a Work—and while “person” can include legal entities, the act of creation must be tied to an identifiable human contribution. Article 5 reinforces this model by granting moral rights—such as attribution and integrity—only to the Author and their universal successor. These are inherently personal rights, ill-suited for machines or abstract entities without human intermediaries.

While Article 2(2) explicitly protects software and smart applications, the law is silent on the outputs such systems generate. If a machine produces an image, text, or sound with minimal or indirect human prompting, does that output qualify for protection—or fall into the public domain under Article 3(4)? This gap echoes global debates, including in the U.S., where courts and copyright offices have refused to protect machine-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, for example, a federal court held that a work without human authorship is not eligible for copyright, since protection has never extended to non-human creators.

This legal ambiguity raises a deeper issue: if AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted in their own right, can anyone claim ownership over them? One candidate is the end user—the individual who prompts or selects the output. But under UAE law, authorship appears to require more than mere initiation. This leads to the more fundamental question: what does it mean to “create” a work?

What Does It Mean to Create a Work?

At the center of the authorship debate lies a deceptively simple question: what does it mean to “create” a work? Federal Law No. 38 of 2021 does not define “create,” yet it anchors authorship to that act. Article 1 links authorship to creation, while Article 5 suggests that creation requires a personal, expressive act by granting moral rights to the Author. This likely implies that “creation” involves more than triggering a process—it demands an intellectual relationship with the final output.

This distinction matters deeply in the context of AI. While users can shape generative systems through prompts and refinements, the expressive content—style, structure, rhythm—is often driven by the model. If the user did not substantially shape those elements, can they claim authorship? Or are they more like curators—engaged but at a remove?

Yet this view oversimplifies how AI is actually used. In most cases, users don’t submit a single prompt and accept the result—they revise, iterate, and steer the system until the output reflects their vision. When AI is employed this way—as a responsive medium rather than a creator—it is the user’s intention that gives the work its expressive form.

The Machine as Conduit

There is also a deeper, almost metaphysical dimension to the authorship question—one that speaks to the relationship between thought, expression, and the tools that mediate them. Many individuals—whether due to lack of training, technical skill, or physical ability—have long been unable to realize the stories, images, or visions they hold in their minds. Generative AI allows them to externalize what once remained internal—to give form to imagination through machines they guide but do not fully control.

In this light, the machine functions not as a creator, but as a conduit—a responsive medium through which human intention is shaped into expression. The creative spark originates in the human mind; the machine merely renders it visible. This distinction was tested in Zarya of the Dawn, a case involving a graphic novel composed of human-written text alongside AI-generated imagery. The U.S. Copyright Office granted protection for the textual and curated elements but denied protection for the images, concluding that they lacked the “modicum of human creativity” required for copyright.

But this reasoning reveals a deeper inconsistency. The imagery in Zarya was directly generated in response to prompts derived from the protected text. Without the human-authored input, the visuals would not exist. To protect the words but deny protection to the expressive form they called forth is to ignore the unity of the creative act. If copyright exists to safeguard human expression, it should shield the whole—image and text alike—not just its linguistic residue.

The Limits of Control: Addressing the Autonomy Argument

A common objection is that the human user does not control the expressive output. Generative AI, critics argue, is unpredictable. The user cannot dictate the precise layout, style, or content of the result. The creative decisions belong to the model, not the user. Therefore, the user cannot be considered the author.

But this objection rests on a rigid conception of authorship—one at odds with the broader tradition of copyright. All creative tools involve some level of unpredictability. A photographer cannot fully control the light. A painter cannot anticipate how pigment will dry. A novelist cannot predict how metaphor will land. What matters is not precision, but intention. And intention requires judgment.

When users refine prompts, adjust variables, select outputs, and start again, they are not pressing buttons at random. They are engaging in a process of creative shaping. The unpredictability of the medium demands judgment, not undermines it. The AI becomes an instrument—complex, but responsive—to the user’s vision. The human does not surrender creativity but expresses it through the tool.

Rejecting authorship based on imperfect control thus misunderstands the nature of creativity itself. Generative AI may obscure, extend, or challenge traditional authorship—but it does not erase it. Where discernible human intention animates the result, authorship remains. And where authorship remains, the law should protect it.

Strategic and Cultural Implications

This interpretation is not only legally sound—it is aligned with the UAE’s national vision. The UAE’s Artificial Intelligence Strategy aspires to make the country the global leader in AI by 2031. As His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum declared: “We want the UAE to become the world’s most prepared country for artificial intelligence.” That ambition requires not just technological advancement, but legal and cultural readiness. A copyright framework that recognizes human authorship—however mediated—ensures that AI serves creativity, rather than displacing it.

Conclusion

The rise of generative AI is not a rupture with the past, but the latest chapter in humanity’s evolving relationship with creative tools. Copyright has long adapted to new forms—from brush to camera, typewriter to processor—without abandoning its purpose: to protect the expressive labor of the human mind.

As the UAE leads in artificial intelligence, its legal framework must evolve with equal foresight. Interpreting Federal Law No. 38 of 2021 to treat AI as medium—not author—preserves doctrinal coherence while embracing new creative realities. The threshold is not mechanical precision, but discernible human intention—whether expressed through brushstroke, keystroke, or algorithmic prompt.

In doing so, the UAE can preserve the integrity of its copyright system, protect its creators, and define the global standard—not just in AI policy, but in the cultural frameworks that give such innovation meaning.

Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023)
Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196) (Feb. 21, 2023), https://perma.cc/AD86-WGPM.