Facts
The applicant asked the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) to register an image titled "Avatar Virtual", created on the AI platform Leonardo from his own photographs and prompts. He sought economic rights for himself as the user and moral rights for the AI system as author. INDAUTOR refused registration under Article 12 of the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA), which defines the author as a natural person, and Article 18, which vests moral rights in the creator. The Specialised Intellectual Property Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice upheld the refusal. The applicant brought a direct amparo, and the Supreme Court took over the case because of its importance.
What was the legal question in Amparo Directo 6/2025 (AI-generated avatar)?
The question was whether Articles 12 and 18 of the LFDA, which reserve authorship and moral rights to natural persons, are consistent with the Constitution and with Mexico's international obligations. The applicant argued that the rule breached equality and that a pro homine interpretation should extend the concept of author to AI systems. The court also had to decide whether content produced solely by AI can meet the originality requirement on which copyright protection depends.
What did the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico (SCJN), Second Chamber decide?
The Second Chamber denied amparo and held the refusal lawful. According to Pérez-Llorca's summary of the judgment, only natural persons can be authors under Article 12 of the LFDA, and this is an objective and reasonable distinction, grounded in authorship as an expression of human personality, that does not breach equality. Because AI systems work by recombining existing data, they display no autonomous creativity, so content generated solely by AI lacks originality. Moral rights are personal and inalienable, so attributing them to an AI system is legally impossible, and a pro homine reading cannot stretch authorship to non-human entities.
Why does Amparo Directo 6/2025 (AI-generated avatar) matter?
Commentators describe this as the first time the Mexican Supreme Court has squarely addressed copyright in AI-generated content. The draft judgment cited Thaler v. Perlmutter in the US and the UK Supreme Court's DABUS ruling, and the result matches them on the human authorship requirement. It leaves open how much human input would make AI-assisted material protectable; commentators read it as limited to content lacking substantial human creative input and as prompting a debate on legislating for AI-assisted works.
Related stages
The Chamber decided at its session of 2 July 2025; the rapporteur was Justice Lenia Batres Guadarrama. The draft judgment published by the Court (read from a Wayback Machine copy) contained paragraphs stating that AI output falls into the public domain (dominio público). According to Nexos and Tax Today México, these were removed from the final text by unanimous vote, and on 14 July the Chamber issued a note correcting press reports to the contrary. The full judgment was published on 28 August 2025. The final text could not be retrieved, so the summary of the holding rests on Pérez-Llorca's commentary. See thaler-v-perlmutter and aryeh-movement-v-akoth-ai-generated-works-kenya.