[Contribution] Design in the age of human-AI collaboration

Italian furniture company Kartell unveiled a chair named “A.I.” earlier this year. The product drew significant attention because its design was created through a collaboration between renowned designer Philippe Starck and Autodesk’s generative design artificial intelligence.

What attracted particular interest was whether a design jointly created by a human and AI could be registered as a design right in a way that explicitly acknowledges co-creation. Under current regulations, not only in Korea but also in the US, Japan and other countries, a design application is rejected if the creator is identified as an artificial intelligence rather than a human.

This raises a fundamental question: Is it right that designs “drawn by AI” are not recognized as eligible for design rights with AI listed as the creator? In an era when dozens of outputs can be generated with just a few clicks, the question may appear simple, but it is far from trivial. Some argue that AI should be regarded as the creator, while others insist that the true creator is the person who entered the prompt. Korean law still defines the subject of creation strictly as a human being — a “natural person.” As a result, outputs produced by AI are legally attributed to the person who provided the prompt.

Yet regardless of the legal framework, the reality on the ground has already changed dramatically. In the past, designers had to spend nights drawing dozens of drafts by hand. Today, AI can rapidly present a wide range of design options. Designers then select the most promising ones and refine them, drawing on their own sensibilities and experience to raise the level of completion.

In the fashion industry, AI is increasingly used to analyze fashion shows and social media images to predict which colors will trend in the coming season. Automakers, meanwhile, are cutting costs and accelerating development by relying on AI-based designs instead of physical prototypes.

Can the current system accommodate these changes? The answer, for now, is no. For example, a command such as “draw a fan” is far less specific than “create a mint-colored retro fan with a 1950s vibe.” The latter clearly reflects human intent and emotion, making it reasonable to view the prompt itself as an act of human creation. However, because AI learns from vast datasets and sometimes produces unexpected results, it remains unclear where the boundary of human creativity should be drawn.

The same ambiguity applies to infringement disputes. The scope of protection for a registered design does not change simply because AI was used in its creation. Still, opinions may differ on whether it is fair for humans to exclusively monopolize rights that also reflect AI’s contribution.

Even so, the direction of the future is clear. As AI accelerates the pace of design creation and offers an expanding range of possibilities, humans will differentiate themselves through warmth, emotion and experience. Repetitive learning and efficiency will be left to AI, while humans add value rooted in lived experience. The key question will no longer be “Who draws better?” but rather “Who can use AI more effectively and infuse it with greater creative sensibility?”

To address legal gaps in this era of AI-driven transformation, the Ministry of Intellectual Property is conducting in-depth policy research on standards for protecting designs created using AI. By listening closely to voices from the field, the office plans to establish clear guidelines for design applications involving generative AI, such as the “A.I.” chair. Through these efforts, it aims to foster a healthy AI ecosystem and firmly support Korea’s rise as a global powerhouse in AI-driven design.

Kim Yong-sun is Korea's Intellectual Property Minister. The views in this column are his own. -- Ed.