Client Alert – Draft Ruling from Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) Declares AI‑Generated Works Ineligible for Copyright Protection

Overview

In early July, 2025, a draft ruling circulated by the Second Chamber (Segunda Sala) of Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) in Amparo Directo 6/2025, which proposes that works generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) would not qualify for copyright protection under Mexican law. The draft concludes that only natural persons—engaging in human intellectual creativity—can be recognized as authors.

This draft ruling arose from a dispute brought by Gerald García Báez, who attempted to register a digitally generated “Virtual Avatar” image created via the Leonardo AI platform. He sought moral rights for the AI system itself and patrimonial rights for himself as user. Both the Mexican Copyright Office (INDAUTOR) and the Federal Administrative Court denied protection, concluding that AI-generated output lacks human authorship.

Important: This is not yet a binding or final ruling. The decision is still pending formal adoption and publication by the SCJN. The ultimate outcome—and any possible modifications—remain to be seen, but this draft presents a clear insight on the thought process and legal analysis at Mexico’s Supreme Court on these novel issues pertaining to AI generated content.

Key Highlights

Strategic Analysis

• **Absolute Denial of AI-Only Copyright (Draft Position)**
  The draft affirms that purely autonomously-created AI output would not be copyrightable—there is no halfway protection or “AI moral rights.” If finalized, this ruling would decisively shape Mexico’s AI IP landscape, limiting reliance on copyright for AI-generated assets.
• **Global Divergence in AI IP Standards**
  Mexico appears poised to maintain a strict human-authorship standard, in contrast to jurisdictions like the UK, Australia, and South Africa exploring limited AI authorship frameworks. Cross-border strategies cannot assume Mexican law will align with emerging international models.
• **Contracts & Confidentiality Take On Heightened Importance**
  Regardless of copyright status, businesses must secure proprietary AI outputs through robust contractual and trade-secret protections. Licensing models should include explicit ownership clauses, especially where humans are part of the creative process with AI tools.

Business‑Focused Takeaways

• **AI‑Driven Product and Marketing Development**
  Teams relying on AI tools for creative output should document human contributions carefully—and plan to protect outputs via contracts rather than copyright.
• **Data‑Driven Tech & SaaS Deployment**
  Even if commercial use remains permissible, businesses must understand that AI-generated content may remain unprotected and publicly reusable in Mexico.
• **IP Valuation & M&A Risks**
  Deal due diligence must scrutinize the human authorship element of any AI-generated assets to avoid overvaluing content that may lack legal protection.
• **Cross‑Jurisdiction Licensing Complexities**
  Global companies should segment AI workflows and tailor enforcement strategies to each jurisdiction’s legal position—including Mexico’s likely restrictive stance.

What You Should Do Now

• Closely monitor the SCJN proceedings for the final decision in Amparo Directo 6/2025.
• Audit existing IP portfolios for works produced entirely by AI versus those with documented human input.
• Revise contracts and policies to address ownership and confidentiality of AI-generated outputs.
  Explore alternative IP protection, including trade secrets, trademarks, and technological measures.
• Be cautious about making business decisions that rely on copyright protection for purely AI-created works in Mexico until the Supreme Court publishes its final ruling.

Market Outlook & Final Thoughts

Mexico’s Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold the traditional human-authorship standard for copyright protection. However, the draft is not yet final. Businesses should avoid acting on this ruling until the SCJN issues a definitive judgment.

FisherBroyles will continue monitoring this matter and provide updates as the SCJN moves toward a final ruling. We’re ready to help clients navigate the fast-changing intersection of AI, IP, and international regulation—across Mexico and globally.

For additional information, please contact Sergio Legorreta at [email protected] with any questions or more specific situations.

FisherBroyles is an international law firm practicing in a number of jurisdictions both in the United States and overseas through affiliated legal entities and branch offices of those entities.  Legal services in Mexico are provided through Bravo Gutierrez & Münch, S.C., a member of FisherBroyles (the “Contracting Member”), with offices located in Mexico City, at Parque Lincoln, 5th Floor, Aristoteles 77, Polanco, Mexico City, Ciudad de Mexico 11560 and in Monterrey, at Blvd. Antonio L. Rodriguez 3000-5to piso Interior, 501 Torre Albia, Col. Santa Maria 64650 Monterrey, N.L.

The FisherBroyles Members engage in coordinated international legal practice and may share certain support services but are separate legal entities, each of which is solely responsible for its own work and is not responsible for the work of any other FisherBroyles Member.  Each FisherBroyles Member is subject to the laws and regulations of the particular jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which it operates. Full details of the legal and regulatory status of each FisherBroyles Member are available on the FisherBroyles website.

The use of the name FisherBroyles is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Member Firms are in a partnership or are part of an LLP.  The use of the word “partner” on any Member Firm’s website or in any other Member Firm materials refers to a partner or member of a FisherBroyles Member or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.  You agree that your relationship is with the Contracting Member and not with another FisherBroyles Member unless otherwise confirmed in writing to you. You also agree that your relationship is not with any individual who is a member, employee, or consultant (including anyone we call a partner) of the Contracting Firm Member, who will therefore assume, to the extent permitted by law, no personal liability to you.  Absent the explicit agreement and consent of both entities involved, no FisherBroyles Member is responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor has any authority to obligate or otherwise bind, any other FisherBroyles Member.