Down by Law
Navigating AI, IP, and Copyright with attorney Jakob Plesner Mathiasen
If you’re in the creative industries, you’ll want to read this—whether to avoid a future courtroom appearance or just to stay ahead of the curve.
Here at Prompt Collective, we’re always exploring the latest frontiers in creativity and tech. So, who better to talk to about copyright in the age of AI than Danish IP expert and attorney Jakob Plesner Mathiasen? With AI tools becoming more and more present in content creation, the question of who really owns what has never been more pressing. Jakob, a top figure in Scandinavian IP law, has been diving into these issues, guiding creators and companies as they navigate the Wild West of AI-driven creativity.
In our conversation, Jakob unpacks the future of copyright as AI reshapes what it means to be "creative." Can AI-generated works be copyrighted? How much human input does it take to turn something from machine-made into art? And are we facing a tidal wave of new lawsuits over deepfakes, unauthorized voices, and content that pushes copyright laws to their limits? Jakob weighs in on these questions and more, offering some practical advice for creators who want to use AI without stepping on legal landmines.
Let’s dive into this essential conversation on AI, copyright, and the evolving definition of creativity.
Interview with Jakob Plesner Mathiasen
Prompt Collective: AI is changing everything—from how we create to how we consume. How do you see AI’s future role when it comes to copyright? Are we looking at overhauling existing laws, or can current frameworks adapt?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: AI is definitely here to stay, whether in film, music, or other creative fields. I think it's safe to say we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. But what’s unique about copyright law, especially in Scandinavia and Europe, is its adaptability. Copyright law is broad and, so far, it has managed to keep pace with technological change.
That said, there are areas where we might need clarifications. Take deepfakes, for example. They aren’t explicitly covered in the Copyright Act here or in most places around the world. It’s mostly case law that’s guiding these issues now. I wouldn’t say we need entirely new copyright laws, but we do need targeted updates to address specific AI-driven phenomena.
Prompt Collective: So you feel that the current legal setup can handle most AI-related copyright questions? What about scenarios where an AI tool contributes heavily to a script or a piece of music?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: Absolutely, current laws can cover much of it. But how we solve these cases is where it gets interesting. Say a scriptwriter uses an AI model to co-write a script without indicating how much is his work versus the AI's. In this case, we have a question of where the copyright line is drawn.
This also depends on national interpretations. In almost all countries, copyright requires human creativity—except a few, like the UK and Ukraine, which allow for "computer-generated works." But if an AI wrote a screenplay with minimal human intervention, it likely wouldn’t meet the creativity threshold in most jurisdictions.
Prompt Collective: Let’s say some of our readers want to use AI for their own projects. What advice would you give them to protect their work legally?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: Two things come to mind. First, document everything, especially your prompts if you’re generating substantial work, like a script. Courts may need to see this to understand how much of the work is yours versus the AI’s. In a recent case, a U.S. court rejected a claim because the person wouldn’t reveal their exact use of AI.
Second, customize the AI-generated content to make it uniquely yours. AI tools like Midjourney can produce incredible images, but if you’re lazy with prompts—like “three people smiling in sunlight”—you’re likely not creating anything copyrightable. Get specific, make adjustments, and ensure it’s your own spin on the content.
Prompt Collective: It sounds like, for now, “lazy prompting” won’t cut it. Are there any major differences between how countries handle AI and copyright?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: Yes, and some of it is surprising. In the U.S., the Copyright Office is very strict—if there’s more than minimal AI involvement, the work isn’t protected. China, on the other hand, is more lenient; they consider some use of AI tools as part of a creative process if the creator just selects or tweaks the output. It’s interesting because, traditionally, the U.S. has been very protective of IP rights, while China has been viewed as more lax.
Prompt Collective: What do you think creators should be mindful of when using AI tools?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: It comes down to two things: be cautious about infringement and use common sense. Avoid uploading copyrighted material into an AI tool to avoid potential legal risks. Also, be mindful of the output—does it look too similar to something protected? For example, someone might prompt an image of “a cartoon mermaid” and end up with something resembling Disney’s The Little Mermaid. In these cases, common sense can go a long way in avoiding legal trouble.
Prompt Collective: With all these legal and creative considerations, it sounds like AI can’t replace traditional creativity anytime soon. Do you think AI will ever become a genuine tool for innovation without compromising copyright?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: AI is best used as a tool, much like grammar check in Word—albeit on a different level. Right now, anyone can generate thousands of songs or coloring book pages with AI, but none of it would be truly copyrightable. The real challenge comes when someone uses AI in a way that might be creative. For now, the U.S. Copyright Office won’t protect work if more than a minimal amount of AI is involved, while the same work, conversely, could be protected by copyright in China.
Prompt Collective: When do you think we’ll start seeing legal cases that clarify these issues?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: Within the next few years, for sure. There have already been a few copyright cases around the world, but I’d say by 2026 we’ll start to see a solid framework from case law. For infringement cases—like when an AI tool generates something suspiciously similar to a known work—those are already beginning to surface. By 2025, we’ll likely see more high-profile rulings that will give us clearer guidelines.
Prompt Collective: And what about deepfakes and AI-created voices? Do you think we’ll need entirely new laws there?
Jakob Plesner Mathiasen: Deepfakes are a unique case. I expect we’ll see specific legislation on them within the next year, especially concerning the use of deceased people’s likenesses and AI-generated voices. Current laws don’t cover this clearly, so clarifying when and how these can be used in media is overdue.
Jakob’s Key Takeaways for Creatives Using AI:
Document Your Process: Keep a record of prompts and adjustments to prove how much of the work is your own, in case of copyright questions.
Customize for Originality: Avoid “lazy prompting.” Use specific, unique inputs to ensure AI-generated content has your personal spin.
Be Cautious with Copyrighted Material: Don’t upload or recreate copyrighted works in AI tools without permission to avoid legal risks.
Stay Informed on Country-Specific Rules: Different regions treat AI and copyright differently, so be aware of local guidelines if publishing globally.
Use Common Sense: If your AI-generated work resembles a well-known creation, tread carefully to avoid infringement issues.
A big thanks to Jakob Plesner Mathiasen for sharing his invaluable insights with us! For Danish readers interested in IP and entertainment law, check out Jakob’s podcast, Entertainmentretten on Spotify for more deep dives into the legal landscape.
With AI tools evolving constantly, Jakob’s insights remind us to stay proactive, informed, and creatively responsible. Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for the next edition of /promptcollective—we’re only scratching the surface of what’s possible in AI and creativity!