Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Introduction
CIPPIC has filed an application in the Federal Court to expunge or rectify a copyright registration that identifies an artificial intelligence (AI) system as a co-author. Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) v Sahni (T-1717-24) raises critical questions about who, or what, can be an author under the Copyright Act.
CIPPIC brought this application because copyright law is intended to protect and incentivize human creativity. In 2021, Mr. Sahni obtained a copyright registration for an image generated using an AI application. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) granted the registration through its automated system, a process involving no substantive review of authorship, ownership, or originality. CIPPIC believes that the registration creates a misleading precedent that harms the integrity of the copyright system and creates uncertainty for artists and the public.
This application addresses fundamental questions about authorship and originality that are central to the purpose of the Copyright Act. The central issue is whether copyright protection should extend to outputs generated with minimal human involvement. CIPPIC's application seeks to obtain necessary guidance on these issues and the rectification of the Register to ensure its entries comply with the Copyright Act.
Background Facts
The Respondent, Ankit Sahni, generated the output at the center of this case, SURYAST, using an AI application called RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App (RAGHAV AI). To initiate the process, Mr. Sahni selected three inputs:
-
a content input (an original photograph of a sunset taken by Mr. Sahni),
-
a style input (Vincent van Gogh's painting The Starry Night, which is in the public domain), and
-
a variable value to determine the amount of style transfer to apply.
RAGHAV AI then processed these inputs to generate the final output (pictured below).
The "Legal Test Cases"
Mr. Sahni characterizes his efforts to register the SURYAST output in various jursdictions as "legal test cases." He has sought copyright registration in multiple countries with mixed results:
-
United States: the United States Copyright Review Board refused to grant the output copyright registration, concluding that it "lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim."
-
India: The Indian Copyright Office initially granted a registration listing both Mr. Sahni and RAGHAV AI as co-authors, but later issued a notice of withdrawal.
-
Canada: On December 1, 2021, CIPO issued registration number 1188619 to the SURYAST output, listing Mr. Sahni and RAGHAV AI as co-authors.
Registration in Canada
CIPO granted the SURYAST registration through its automated online system. CIPO has stated that it "does not verify ownership, or any other particulars, provided on the application form" and that, for online submissions, its system generates certificates of registration instantaneously.
CIPPIC repeatedly raised concerns with CIPO about the registration. CIPO confirmed it would not amend the register and advised CIPPIC to seek legal counsel and pursue the matter in court.
CIPPIC's Application
CIPPIC argues three core positions:
-
Standing: CIPPIC has standing to bring this application as an "interested person" under the Copyright Act and on public interest grounds. The term should be interpreted broadly to allow public interest organizations to ensure the accuracy of the register, particularly when no private party is positioned to challenge an invalid registration that has broad systemic implications.
-
Originality and Human Authorship: SURYAST is not "original," which requires the exercise of "skill and judgment." An AI system is incapable of exercising these human faculties; its process is purely computational. Mr. Sahni's contribution was a trivial and mechanical act of selecting inputs, which is not enough to meet the originality standard required for copyright protection.
-
AI Authorship: SURYAST is not copyrightable because it lacks an author. The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that an author must be a human being, and the entire framework of the Copyright Act is built on this premise. Mr. Sahni is not the author because he only provided an unprotectable idea, while the AI system was solely responsible for generating the work's final expressive form.
Mr. Sahni's Position
Mr. Sahni argues:
-
Validity: Mr. Sahni takes no position on CIPPIC’s standing to bring the application. He argues the court's review should be limited to the Registrar's decision to issue the certificate, which he submits is valid and accurate. The registration correctly identifies both him and RAGHAV AI as co-authors to honestly reflect how SURYAST was created.
-
Joint Authorship and Unique Contributions: Both Mr. Sahni and RAGHAV AI are properly authors because they each made essential and unique contributions to SURYAST. Mr. Sahni exercised skill and judgment by taking the input photograph with specific artistic intent. RAGHAV AI’s contribution was a distinct and independent interpretation of these inputs, exercising its own capabilities to apply colours, brushstrokes, and other features.
-
Copyright in AI-Assisted Works: The Copyright Act does not prohibit AI involvement in creating a copyright-protected work. Mr. Sahni argues that since the Act recognizes non-human "makers" for cinematographic works, authorship is not strictly limited to natural persons. He submits that protecting works created with AI assistance incentivizes innovation, which aligns with the fundamental purpose of copyright law.
Status
The matter is moving forward. The parties are currently waiting for the Court to set a hearing date.
There is an outstanding motion to intervene from the Canadian Music Publishers Association, which the parties do not oppose.
Related Posts
July 31, 2025
CIPPIC Files Memorandum of Fact and Law in CIPPIC v Sahni
CIPPIC has filed its Memorandum of Fact and Law with the Federal Court in Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) v Sahni. CIPPIC is asking the Federal Court to expunge or rectify a copyright registration that holds out an AI system as an author under Canadian copyright law.
July 10, 2024
CIPPIC v Sahni: AI's Role in Copyright Law
CIPPIC has filed an application in the Federal Court to expunge or rectify a copyright registration that holds out an artificial intelligence ("AI") program as an author under Canadian copyright law.