This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 1: IP and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Second Chamber, Mexico [2025]: Amparo Directo 6/2025
Date of judgment: July 2, 2025
Issuing authority: Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Second Chamber
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Constitutional)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights); IP Regulatory Body
Plaintiff/Appellant: Gerald García Báez
Defendant/Respondent: Specialized Chamber for Intellectual Property Matters of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice
Keywords: Copyright; Authorship; Human authorship; Moral rights; Generative artificial intelligence (AI); Originality
Basic facts: In November 2023, Gerald García Báez filed an application with the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) for registration of an image entitled “AVATAR VIRTUAL: GERALD GARCÍA BÁEZ”. The applicant stated that he had provided his own photographs and instructions to the artificial intelligence (AI) platform “Leonardo”, and that the latter had generated the work. He sought recognition of moral rights in favor of the AI platform, and economic rights in favor of himself.
INDAUTOR rejected the application on grounds that the content had been artificially generated and was not the product of human creation. It considered that recognition of moral rights in favor of an AI platform was not appropriate, since the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA) recognizes authorship only in natural persons.
The applicant brought administrative contentious proceedings before the Specialized Chamber for Intellectual Property Matters (SEPI) of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA), which upheld INDAUTOR’s decision, considering that Article 12 of the LFDA requires authorship to vest in a natural person and that the originality required under Article 3 of the same Law presupposes human creativity.
Mr Báez filed a direct amparo proceeding against that judgment. The Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power to assume jurisdiction over the case and analyzed the possibility of registering a work created by artificial intelligence, the attribution of moral rights to an AI platform, and the constitutionality of the provisions reserving authorship to natural persons.
Held: The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) denied the amparo filed by Mr Báez against the judgment of the SEPI.
Relevant holdings in relation to Copyright and AI:
1) Human authorship and originality of AI-generated content
The SCJN held that, pursuant to Articles 3 and 12 of the LFDA, registration of a work essentially requires two elements: i) that it be the product of human intellect and ii) that it be an original creation. Mexican law does not recognize authorship in synthetic or artificial entities.
The SCJN linked originality to human creativity. It considered that AI does not possess the characteristics of individuality and originality inherent to human beings, as it lacks elements such as experience, perception of the environment, and feelings.
2) Moral rights and the personal link between the author and the work
The SCJN considered that moral rights cannot be recognized in favor of AI. Article 18 of the LFDA attributes such rights to the author, and they protect the personal link between the author and the author’s creation; given their strictly personal nature, the Court considered them incompatible with the attribution of authorship to AI.
3) International framework and foreign precedents
The SCJN rejected the argument that, because the Berne Convention does not contain a definition of “author”, it would not exclude the possibility of AI authorship. It considered that various provisions of the Convention – including those relating to the life and death of the author and the author’s nationality – support the conclusion that the system of protection presupposes a natural person.
With respect to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the SCJN stated that the provisions invoked by the complainant are aimed at the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in accordance with the respective domestic legal systems and do not establish specific guidelines for the registration of works created through AI.
The criteria adopted by authorities in other countries do not determine the outcome of an application for registration filed in Mexico; such applications must be decided in accordance with the Mexican legal framework.
4) Equality and non-discrimination
The SCJN held that Articles 12 and 18 of the LFDA do not violate the rights to equality and non-discrimination by reserving authorship of works to natural persons. According to the SCJN, there is no appropriate comparator between a natural person and an artificial entity, nor between human creativity and products generated through AI.
Relevant legislation: Constitution of the United Mexican States (MX261); Federal Law on Copyright (MX253); Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (TRT/BERNE/001); United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (TRT/NAFTA/001)