Key holding or allegation
Claims were dismissed because the claimant failed to prove the asserted prompting/generation process and because the court considered the AI-generated image not to be the unique creative result of a natural person.
Why it matters
Direct European counterpoint to Chinese cases recognising copyright where human creative contribution is sufficiently shown.
Facts
Claimant alleged he generated an image depicting parties signing a business contract and that the defendant used it without permission.
Issues before the court
Whether claimant proved the generation process and whether the image was a unique result of creative activity by a natural person.
What the court did not decide
Does not decide a scenario involving extensive iterative prompting, masks, image-to-image control, compositing or other substantial provable human intervention.
Procedural timeline
Prague Municipal Court
Merits judgment: Claim dismissed because asserted prompting/generation was not proved and because the image was not considered the unique creative result of a natural person.