On Creators, Copyright, and the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Use

A chef combines available ingredients—chicken, galangal, onion, salt, turmeric, coriander, and seasoning—and fries them. Thanks to the delicious ‘Ayam Goreng Lengkuas’, the chef is hailed as a creator, the originator of a new chicken dish variant. For other previously non-existent, authentic creations, the creator’s name is often attached to the recipe. A Kopi Butterscotch Sea-Salt Latte, for instance, immortalises the name of Vidi Aldiano, who created it in collaboration with Fore Coffee.

The same applies to a wordsmith. From a stock of words, metaphors, and rhyming techniques, poetry is created. For a formulation that presents beauty and can even stir consciousness, the individual is called a poet. A similar process is undertaken by a songwriter. Using available materials and methods, a song is created. The creator’s name stands alongside their creation.

The activities of chefs, poets, songwriters, filmmakers, painters, animators, and programmers all involve utilising available materials, methods, combinations, and modifications. These are provided by nature or are products of culture. All can result in a creation, and the actor is called a creator. The Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI) defines a creator as an originator or initiator of ideas. What then of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its intelligent products? Can its products be called creations, and can the producer be labelled a creator? After all, the activity of using AI also utilises ‘available materials’ in the form of data, systematics from machine learning training, and the structured operations of its hardware.

This question is not easy to answer, leading to widespread debate in various forums, including social media. The debate is polarised into two views with no middle ground. The first view holds that ‘AI is a tool that enhances human performance’. With tools, work becomes easier, faster, and more precise. This perspective positions AI like a stethoscope for a doctor when making a diagnosis, clarifying the sounds of a patient’s heartbeat and breathing. Or like a printing press used by a publisher to produce many books, replacing the need to write them out one by one and enabling mass production in a short time. All use of devices—including AI—aims to ease, or even free, the limited human mind, senses, and body.

The second view argues that ‘AI is equivalent to humans’. This reality becomes increasingly apparent as its development proves unstoppable. Generative AI, capable of producing various intellectual products, is now being surpassed by Agentic AI. This AI, acting as an agent, can demonstrate intelligence that is difficult to distinguish from that of humans. Its position is equal, and in many cases, its intellectual products have already surpassed those of humans. The implication, according to this second group, is that when someone uses AI to produce a work, they cannot claim to be the creator. Producing a work with AI while calling oneself the creator is no different from being a work thief—a plagiarist. An act that is unacceptable in the world of creation.

To find a meeting point between these two unconnected views, one can examine the position of humans compared to AI and its creations. One such analysis comes from Arif Perdana and Sinta Dewi Rosadi in 2025, in their work ‘AI Bisa Mengancam Seniman dan Melanggar Hak Cipta: Perlu Diregulasi, Bukan Dilarang’. A key section states that generally, the legal frameworks currently in force in many countries declare that only a human can be considered the creator of a work and hold the copyright. This provision creates problems when a work is generated by AI, because AI is not recognised as having the same legal standing as a human.

A similar analysis was presented by Cynthia Nzuki in 2022 through ‘Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence: Can Artificial Intelligence Receive Copyright Protection?’. It states that copyright protection is granted to original creative works with a fixed form of application, and that qualifying works are protected by copyright. The statement is then reinforced—in the context of literary works—by noting that most jurisdictions require originality to stem from a human author. This analysis is followed by examples of its application in several countries.

In Spain and Germany, only works created by a human can be protected by copyright. The European Union also states that copyright only applies to original works whose originality reflects the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’. This is understood as an original work that must reflect the personality of the author. This means a human element as the author is required for copyright protection to be granted to a work.

From this analysis, which is entirely within a legal framework, two important points emerge. First, only humans are legally recognised as creators. The rights to their creations are attached to the human. Second, this view is based on a legal perspective that has been in force since before AI became widespread, rather than having adapted to its development. From these two points, when adapting to the increasingly unstoppable development of AI—where distinguishing between human and AI creations becomes ever more difficult—it is very possible to arrive at the understanding that the legal framework in use no longer covers the changes. This situation is far from simple.