I. INTRODUCTION
Copyright law is fundamentally built upon the principle of protecting human ingenuity and creative labor. For centuries, this legal framework has recognized and protected as “works” those original products that reflect the personal imprint of their author and are created by a human being. However, in today’s world, where artificial intelligence is capable of producing highly aesthetic and commercially valuable designs within seconds by processing billions of data points, this human-centered paradigm is facing an ontological crisis. Traditional statutes such as the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“Law No. 5846”) are based on a philosophy that does not foresee the autonomous creativity of machine intelligence.
This fundamental challenge finds its most concrete expression in an industry such as fashion, where creativity, speed, and commercial competition are deeply intertwined. While artificial intelligence offers brands unprecedented innovation and efficiency, it also carries the risk of rendering fundamental legal concepts—such as authorship, originality, infringement, and liability—ineffective. This is not merely a matter of technological adaptation but constitutes a profound challenge that will shape the future of the intellectual property regime.
This brief will examine the legal status of AI-generated designs in the digitalized fashion industry, the regulatory frameworks needed at both national and international levels, and the role of judicial decisions in this evolving area.
II. NO NAME OF THE CREATOR: THE ‘HUMAN AUTHOR’ DOGMA OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE CHALLENGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The classical framework of copyright law constructs the concept of a ‘work’ upon human creative labor and individual characteristics. Under the Law No. 5846, a ‘work’ is defined as an original product that bears the personal imprint of its author and is created by a human being. However, in fashion designs generated by artificial intelligence, human intervention is often limited to initiating the algorithm, selecting the data set, or entering commands. In these circumstances, the determining factor in the formation of the resulting design is not the human’s aesthetic intuition, but rather the processing power of the algorithm and the data pool it utilizes. This situation raises a fundamental legal question: Who is the ‘author’? Is it the user, the developer, or perhaps no one at all? This uncertainty creates the risk that AI-generated outputs may be regarded as ‘ownerless works’ and thus considered part of the public domain, leaving them without protection.
This legal grey area is especially problematic for fashion designs with high commercial value, generating a significant gap in protection. Brands and independent designers attempt to fill this gap by specifying rights ownership in detailed contracts, thereby preparing for potential infringements. However, it is often objectively indeterminable whether an AI-assisted design is truly ‘original’ and whose ‘personal imprint’ it reflects.
In many countries, notably Germany, copyright protection is granted exclusively to human creativity; as a result, the ownership of AI-generated works remains a grey area under the law. Thus, the ‘no name of the creator’ issue is not only an ethical debate but also a matter with profound economic and legal ramifications for the fashion industry. As creativity transitions from the human hand to digital intelligence, the concept of ‘ownership’ awaits redefinition at the very core of fashion law.
III. THE DIGITAL ECHO OF THE PAST: THE RISK OF INFRINGEMENT AND THE CHAIN OF LIABILITY IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DESIGNS
AI-powered design systems can generate new aesthetic forms by analyzing vast quantities of visuals, patterns, and photographs. However, in this process, the unauthorized use of millions of copyrighted materials as training data is a common occurrence. This situation not only increases the risk of copyright infringement but also deepens the debate on plagiarism within the fashion industry.
Protected works contained within the datasets that feed the AI can sometimes be reproduced in a nearly identical manner. Consequently, the originality of the design becomes questionable, while the rights of the original copyright holder are infringed upon. The chain of liability, however, remains ambiguous: if a design generated by AI is substantially similar to a protected work of another brand, does the liability rest with the designer, the platform, or the software developer? In current litigation, the direct or indirect liability of users and platforms for the unauthorized use of data is under scrutiny.
The fact that fast-fashion brands, such as the Chinese retailer Shein founded in 2008, face accusations of infringement while using AI to rapidly produce collections underscores the sectoral importance of this issue. Furthermore, the fact that other rights holders, such as models and photographers, are also aggrieved by unauthorized use further complicates the chain of liability.
In this environment, brands are compelled to both utilize technology within an ethical framework and mitigate legal risks. An increasing number of brands and platforms are developing new technological solutions to ensure transparency regarding the source of their training data, to work with licensed content, and to prevent potential infringements. However, the existing legal framework is not yet adequate to address the challenges of this new era.
IV. FROM THE COURTROOM TO THE CATWALK: WHAT DO PRECEDENT-SETTING DECISIONS IN THE U.S. AND EUROPE IMPLY FOR TURKISH LAW?
The copyright protection of AI-generated productions is being tested by judicial decisions, particularly in the United States and Europe. In its decisions on “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” and “Zarya of the Dawn,” the U.S. Copyright Office has emphasized the criterion of “meaningful human intervention.” Works created entirely by artificial intelligence have been excluded from protection; however, it has been noted that copyright may be granted if the human creative contribution is significant.
The digital artwork titled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” was generated using the AI tool Midjourney and won first place in the 2022 Colorado State Fair art competition. Nevertheless, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the registration application on the grounds that a substantial part of the work did not constitute human authorship, ruling that only the arrangements made by the human author could be afforded limited protection. Similarly, in the case of the graphic novel “Zarya of the Dawn,” the U.S. Copyright Office determined that the texts written by the author, Kristina Kashtanova, were protectable. However, it decided to exclude the images generated via Midjourney from the scope of protection, reasoning that they lacked the element of “human authorship.” Both examples demonstrate that the nature and extent of human contribution in AI-assisted creative processes have become the decisive factor for intellectual property protection.
A similar trend is present in the European legal system: copyright is granted only to works based on human creativity. Therefore, AI outputs that lack a “human touch” are not considered legally protected works. However, the threshold for creative contribution in hybrid works has not yet been clearly defined.
These precedents may serve as a guide for the ongoing debates in Turkish law—which have not yet been settled—concerning the work status and authorship of AI-generated designs. As long as the human-centric approach of the Law No. 5846 is maintained, it is probable that the Turkish judiciary will exhibit a similar tendency. However, considering the rapid pace of digital transformation in the fashion industry, legislative updates in this area appear inevitable.
V. ALIGNING CODE WITH LAW: SMART CONTRACTS AND TECHNOLOGICAL SAFEGUARDS FOR NAVIGATING UNCERTAINTY
In the face of uncertainties in copyright, stakeholders in the fashion industry are no longer adopting a passive stance but are taking a proactive position. The most fundamental line of defense is the incorporation of explicit provisions governing intellectual property rights into the user agreements of artificial intelligence platforms. It is of paramount importance for designers to meticulously review the license terms of the software they utilize and to develop contractual protections against potential claims of right. The source of training data, the allocation of rights, and the designation of who qualifies as the “creator” must be explicitly defined in such agreements. In addition, blockchain-based registration systems facilitate the proof of originality by digitally recording at which stage and by whom a design was created. Digital watermarking technologies, in turn, enable the detection of unauthorized use and the protection of ownership.
Furthermore, through the use of IP-safe algorithms, AI models can be trained exclusively on licensed or copyright-free content. These technological and contractual measures not only protect the rights of designers but also strengthen the legal standing of brands in judicial proceedings.
The establishment of ethical standards and principles of transparency has become a prerequisite for the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Industry standards and robust legislation, developed through international cooperation, will minimize AI-related legal risks and place the digital transformation of the fashion industry on a secure foundation.
VI. CONCLUSION
The generation of designs using artificial intelligence in the fashion sector has brought copyright law to a turning point. This brief has demonstrated how the rise of artificial intelligence in the fashion industry has profoundly shaken the traditional and human-centric foundations of copyright law. Research indicates that existing legal frameworks, such as the Law No. 5846, create a protection gap in the face of AI-generated designs because they attribute the concept of “author” exclusively to humans. This situation carries the risk of rendering these new works, which are “without a named creator,” unprotected and depriving their commercial potential of legal certainty. Concurrently, the training of AI models with copyrighted data makes claims of infringement and rights violations inevitable, complicating the question of where the chain of liability terminates.
Although precedent-setting decisions in the U.S. and Europe present the “meaningful human intervention” criterion as a potential solution, this approach falls short of clarifying the boundaries of creative contribution in hybrid works. While these international trends serve as a reference point for potential future interpretations in Turkish law, they are far from offering a permanent solution.
Ultimately, the industry’s turn toward technological and contractual solutions—such as smart contracts, blockchain-based registration, and IP-safe algorithms—in response to legal uncertainties is indicative of an effort to establish a proactive line of defense. However, these measures cannot substitute for a legal framework. Therefore, it is an imperative of our time for legislators, industry stakeholders, and technology developers to collaborate in designing a flexible, equitable, and predictable legal regime that both protects human creativity and paves the way for technological innovation. In this digital era, where creativity is being redefined by code, the updating of the concepts of originality, ownership, and liability will be the key to the sustainable future of the fashion industry.
B. KEY TAKEAWAYS
(1)Artificial intelligence fundamentally challenges the human-centric paradigm of copyright law, thereby creating a legal lacuna.
(2)The “human author” requirement under the Law No. 5846 risks rendering AI-generated outputs unprotected.
(3)AI-generated designs may be relegated to the status of “ownerless works,” thereby losing their commercial value.
(4)The risk of infringement stemming from the use of training data creates a complex chain of legal liability.
(5)U.S. and European jurisprudence require the criterion of “meaningful human intervention” as a condition for protection.
(6)The threshold for creative contribution in hybrid works (i.e., human-machine collaborations) remains undefined.
(7)The industry is safeguarding itself through proactive technological solutions, such as smart contracts and blockchain.
(8)Technological measures alone are insufficient to substitute for a comprehensive legal framework.
(9)The solution lies in the development of a flexible legislative framework through collaboration among legislators, industry stakeholders, and technologists.
(10)The objective is to establish an equitable balance that protects human creativity while fostering innovation.
