Was Your Work Made by AI?
Here’s What the Mexican Supreme Court Says About Its Protection The Second Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) resolved Amparo Directo 6/2025 and confirmed that under the Mexican legal system only natural persons can be recognized as authors of works protected by copyright.
Key points:
The Case
Gerald García Báez requested that the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) register the work “Virtual Avatar: Gerald García Báez”, generated with the AI tool “Leonardo.”
The Initial Denial
INDAUTOR rejected the registration, arguing that under Mexican law only works originating from human creativity can be protected. Outputs generated by a machine do not qualify as such.
The Legal Path
García Báez challenged the decision, but the Federal Court of Administrative Justice upheld the denial. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which took up the case due to its importance.
As Stated by the Court:
The SCJN upheld the denial of registration and confirmed the constitutionality of applying the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA), which defines “ author” exclusively as a natural person (Articles 6, 12, and 18). Only humans can be considered authors.
The Court concluded that artificial intelligence, lacking individuality and human creative capacity, cannot hold moral or economic copyright.
This limitation does not violate equality principles or the international treaties invoked; neither the Berne Convention nor the USMCA obliges Mexico to recognize non-human entities as authors.
Moral rights such as recognition as an author or deciding whether a work may be modified, are inseparable from human beings and cannot be transferred to a machine.
The Court framed the human–AI distinction not as discrimination, but as a valid differentiation: only humans have the creativity that copyright law protects.
The Supreme Court denied the amparo. In Mexico, no creation made entirely by artificial intelligence can be registered as a copyrighted work. Only humans may be recognized as authors
Relevance and Impact
A clear and binding precedent is established: in Mexico no AI platform or system can hold copyright.
Natural persons who use generative AI cannot register outputs as their own works if their human contribution is limited to providing prompts or parameters.
The ruling provides legal certainty to cultural, technological, and creative industries about the scope of copyright protection over AI-generated content.
Practical Implications for Professionals and Businesses
Contracts and Licenses: Since AI cannot be an author, companies must revise IP clauses to govern the exploitation of AI-generated outputs,
Risk Management: Internal policies should document human involvement in creating AIassisted works.
Innovation and Compliance: Marketing, design, software, and media teams must consider alternative protection models when the creation is predominantly artificial.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions or require specific guidance, please feel free to contact our firm.
The Supreme Court’s decision sets the first national precedent delimiting AI’s role in copyright.
Unless the law is reformed, protection remains reserved for human creativity. Organizations adopting generative AI must adapt their innovation and IP strategies to maximize intangible asset value without contravening current law.
Authors:
Edmundo Elías- Fernández
Email: eelias@rrs.com.mx
Juan Rafael Amador Espinosa
Email: ramador@rrs.com.mx
Daniela Sánchez Bernal
Email:dsanchezb@rrs.com.mx
Alejandro Ripoll García
Email: aripoll@rrs.com.mx
Daniela Márquez Ledezma
Email: dmarquez@rrs.com.mx