Creative work, Copyright, and Generative AI: Then and Now

10th June, 2025 - 11:55 am Categories: AI 0 Comments

The video of what sounded like Eminem’s voice rapping over a Future Rave song was put up on the DJ David Guetta’s Instagram in February 2023 and sent sparks flying across the globe on a debate of innovation, of originality and copyright. But that voice was not that of Eminem; it was an AI mechanism taught to sound very much like him. He used two generative AI websites, one to clone the voice and the other to write lyrics in the style of Eminem. So while the whole setup fascinated an audience, it posed questions far graver such as the limits of copyright law in a digital economy and altered state of creation.

Thus, the incidence marks what we consider to be a shift with great consequences in our paradigm of artistic creativity; it goes further than a comical headline. Long-held legal and philosophical presumptions of originality, authorship, and ownership are being called into question, at an increasing rate, by newly available technological advancements such as generative AI.

The Changing Landscape of Creativity

Creativity is something always celebrated and seen as a solitary operation of human brilliance: a poet before a blank page; a painter before an empty canvas. The reality has been rather different. Tool-making, techniques, culture, and working with others are all key to the artist. Guetta’s adaptive use of generative AI emphasizes the whole network creativity one notch further. He engaged in five separate processes: conception, prompting, generation, refining, and deployment.

Guetta initially conceptualized the combination of Eminem-style vocals and Future Rave music. He instructed the AI systems in detail, selected from and modified the output, and finally performed it live. This nimble and iterative process demonstrated how AI was embedded into a much larger creative toolkit, one not likely to replace the person in that situation but one that began with the human, who specified the problem, refined the input, and ultimately chose how to use the output.

Copyright Law meets Generative AI

This human-in-the-loop paradigm shall compel us to reassess copyright law’s original conception. Works must satisfy two fundamental conditions for copyright protection under U.S. federal law: they must be fixed in some tangible form and [they must be] original to produce, with some modicum of creativity.

The first requirement is rather straightforward: The author’s work must be in a form that is capable of being viewed, copied, or shared. But the fun here lies in the second requirement: What does it mean to be “original” in a work? Can AI-assisted works reach this threshold?

In the landmark decision Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the term “originality” meant independent creation plus a “modest quantum of creativity.” This is a deliberately low threshold. Any work simply needs to be the product of human creativity; it does not necessarily need to be original, The composition of Guetta can be viewed as original regarding the assistance of AI, who conceptualised the idea, gave the parameters and instructions, selected the resulting ones, and harmonised them into the performance. The end product was integrated not by the AI but through its use as an instrument under human guidance.

A Broader Network of Creativity

AI-generated art is not differentiated by the fact that machines now can be termed “creative.” What is changing, instead, is the complexity and visibility of the human-machine interface. According to the article of Mark Fenwick and Paulius Jurcys, networks of corporate, technological, and human actors historically have created all creative productions. Indeed, tools always influence creativity-from painter’s brush and canvas to data and software powering AI model.

The Guetta case makes this reality even more apparent: it exposes that contemporary creation is a multi-actor, iterative process. It demands that the outmoded concept of the lone, ex nihilo creator be discarded and rejected that creativity is a networked, co-operative phenomenon.

Legal and Policy Implications

Thus, naturally, generative AI raises distinct legal issues, much beyond originality: Data privacy; Validity of AI system outputs; Legality of data scraping for AI model training.

Though, authors opine, the existing copyright arsenal-more critically, the premise of originality-remains strong enough for works that become partly intelligent. Crucial to the legal definition will be finding that human author-in-the-loop who oversees, chooses, and employs the creative output.

This processing also casts doubt upon the general belief that AI constructs art “autonomously.” It lays bare that even with sophisticated tools, intentions and interventions from users, not to mention decisions become important. Thus, while acknowledging those increasingly complicated ecosystems within which it operates, copyright law can still have relevance in helping protect human creativity.

Creativity in the time of generative AI: Old wine in new bottles?

According to some people, generative AI is just a huge leap further away from the previous times, while it could be much more accurate to think of it as “old wine in new bottles,” as Fenwick and Jurcys suggest. The remaining factors-the human intention, the technical mediation, and the cultural context-have not changed, though the tools are different.

The intricacy and visibility of these networks have altered, however. What was always implied-irrespective of the realities of new idea-generation-making technologies-there is also the promise of falling prey to either utopian enthusiasm or dystopian fear and thus may secure appreciation for the creative capacity of generative AI.

The Guetta-Eminem AI incident is more than just a viral sensation; it serves as a case study for how creativity is changing and how resilient copyright legislation is. It serves as a reminder that uniqueness is not about the lack of technologies but rather about how human creators use such means to convey ideas in distinctive and significant ways.

Fostering legal and policy frameworks that acknowledge and safeguard human creativity—without unnecessarily restricting our tools—is crucial as generative AI continues to infiltrate the creative industries. By doing this, we can guarantee the survival of creativity in all of its networked and hybrid forms.

Author: Saaksshi Singh , in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.