In recent weeks, we have seen how the internet has been flooded with videos of famous YouTubers and streamers like ElRubius, Willyrex, Ibai, and El Xokas in scenes that could be straight out of Marvel movies.
What’s fascinating about these videos is that, although they look like scenes from Hollywood movies, they have been generated by a single person from their home, relying solely on the ability to use the right commands or “prompts” and the appropriate AI model.
At this point, a series of questions arise regarding these contents: Who is the true author of these creations? Is it the AI that generated the content, or the person who had the idea and provided the instructions for the machine to execute them? Who owns the rights to these videos? Can they be considered protectable works?
This dilemma is not only “media-related” but also has significant legal implications. Therefore, let’s analyze all of this from both a technological and legal perspective.
The magic behind AI: Who is really creating?
As we mentioned earlier, behind these audiovisual productions, there is no movie studio or recording process, but rather an artificial intelligence software that, based on specific instructions (the famous “prompts“), generates visual content from already recorded material.
But how does this really work? Let’s get a bit technical. The AI models that generate these videos, images, or even text, like the ones used in ChatGPT or DALL·E, are not “creating” in the traditional sense. What they do is process an immense amount of data, identify patterns, and based on the instructions you give them (like “make Ibai fight a bear”), generate a sequence of images or text that seem new, but are actually the result of a fairly complex mathematical operation.
Who is the author of these works?
This is where legal questions begin. If the AI is the one generating the video, who holds the copyright on this video? Is it the person who gave the instructions (the prompt), the programmer who developed the AI, or perhaps no one at all?
To begin with, intellectual property law in most countries, including Spain, only protects creations that have been generated by humans. This means that, no matter how impressive the video of El Xokas throwing magical macaroni may be, if it was generated entirely by an AI without significant creative intervention from a human, it would not be protected by copyright. In other words, anyone could download that video and use it at will without needing to ask for permission or pay for it.
The importance of human intervention
This is where things get complicated (and where the most interesting discussions begin). If the content is generated by an AI, but you, as the user, have given very specific instructions or intervened in the creative process, you may have the right to claim authorship. The degree of human intervention is key.
For example, it’s not the same as asking the AI to generate a generic video of “Willyrex exploring Mars” as it is to give detailed instructions about the plot, characters, and scenes. The more creativity you, as the user, contribute to the creation, the more likely it is that the copyright could belong to you. But, be careful, it’s not always that simple. The boundaries are not entirely clear, and in many cases, current laws are not prepared to handle these types of situations. We are in a grey area.
What does the law say? Possible scenarios
At this point, we can envision several legal scenarios depending on the level of human intervention in the creation:
The AI does everything:
If the work has been generated solely by the AI with a basic instruction and little to no creative intervention from the human, it is likely that the work would not be protected by copyright. The AI cannot be considered the author under the law, and since you only provided a generic prompt, you also cannot claim authorship.
2. The human as the creator
If you provide more precise and detailed creative instructions (for example, specifying the visual style, which characters should appear, and how they should interact), then you could argue that you are the author or co-author of the work. In this case, the AI would be just another tool, like a paintbrush in the hands of a painter, and the final result could be considered an original human work.
3. Commercial use of AI-generated content
Although AI-generated content may seem appealing for use in commercial projects (such as merchandising, advertisements, or branding), caution is necessary. If the work does not have copyright, anyone could use it without restrictions. This means that if you generate a logo, for example, with an AI, and use it on your online store, someone else could use the same logo without legal consequences. This is where commercial considerations come into play, and why, at least for now, it’s advisable to have a strong human component in any work you want to protect.
AI as a tool, not as a creator
Ultimately, what we are seeing with this type of videos is a reflection of the direction the creative technology sector is heading: AI is a powerful tool that can expand the boundaries of what we can create, but that’s all it is—a tool. As a user, you are the one making the key decisions about the content, style, and creative direction. The AI can handle the technical work, but without your creative input, there is no “creation” as defined by the law.
What can we expect in the future?
The use of AI to generate content will continue to rise, and with it, the need for clearer regulation. Lawmakers around the world are beginning to debate how to address AI-generated works and how to fit them into existing legal frameworks. It’s likely that in the near future, we will see new regulations that will clarify once and for all who the true author is when AI is involved. In the meantime, it’s important to be aware that we are on new ground, and definitive answers are still to come.
