AI-Generated Architectural Designs: Why Copyright Must Remain Human-Centered

The issue of ownership of the copyright in buildings designed by AI systems becomes pertinent. My take on it is that the ownership of the copyright of buildings designed by AI systems should remain in human hands. This is because, despite the fact that AI systems are being integrated into the design of buildings, the human factor in creativity should not be forgotten. Therefore, it would contravene the purpose of copyright law to allow AI systems to claim copyright in buildings designed by them.

In the United States of America, the law of copyright is founded on the concept of human authorship. Therefore, the term “Author” in the U.S. Constitution can be defined to mean a human being. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, a work that was entirely made by a machine without human creative input is not registrable. This is not a random rule. The law of copyright was designed to protect human creativity. Therefore, if a machine can make a building plan on its own without human intellectual input, there is no human creativity to be protected.

There is a concern that the lack of copyright protection for AI-generated architecture could slow the advancement of technology. This concern mixes two sets of incentives. There is an incentive for making software and an incentive for making creative works. Developers of AI may already have patent protection, trade secrecy, and contracts. Architectural companies remain safe as long as their human designers intervene or influence the AI-generated work. There is no need for copyright protection for autonomous work because there is no need for copyright protection to go beyond its basic function.

The other option for copyright protection for AI-generated work is to give the protection to the user who prompted the AI or the company that created the AI. However, there are major flaws in these two options. Architecture occupies a peculiar position because it is at once beautiful and useful. If we blow up the concept of copyright in the realm of AI-generated architecture, it would stifle the growth of cities, limit access to public space, and stifle design competitions. If autonomous designs are granted copyright without any human author, it would mean that entire classes of designs would be locked behind the doors of proprietary rights.

My perspective on this issue is quite simple: I believe copyright should be granted only when a human creator exercises creative control over the final product. AI should be viewed as a simple tool, no different from CAD or other programming tools. The only question that should be asked is: did the human designer choose, arrange, tweak, or conceive the design in a manner that reflects original intellectual judgment? If the AI works on its own, it should be in the public domain. This perspective on the issue maintains the integrity and coherence of the law, prevents the concentration of rights, and maintains the integrity of the discipline of architecture as a human-centered endeavor. As the power and use of AI increase, the law should not be rebranded to view authorship in a different light. The law grants copyright for human creativity, not for the power of the machine.