Mexico: An Intellectual Property Overview

Challenges Facing the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Mexico

Artificial intelligence (AI) is redefining the technological landscape at a speed and depth that few innovations have achieved in the last decade. AI is not just a tool for efficiency; it has become a transformative engine capable of altering business models, value chains and competitive dynamics.

AI has impacted legislation by driving the creation of new, specific regulations to address its ethical and social risks, as well as by challenging existing laws in various areas, particularly in the realm of copyright.

The use of AI to generate content has sparked important debates about copyright ownership. Despite recent criteria, which we will discuss later, current Mexican copyright legislation does not specifically address works created by AI systems. This causes legal uncertainty regarding who can claim intellectual property rights over such creations.

Generally speaking, it is important to remember that copyright is an exclusive human right, derived from individuals’ creativity, intellect, feelings and experiences.

According to Mexican legislation, the Federal Copyright Law categorises copyright into two groups: economic and moral rights. The former refers to the financial exploitation of a work. Moral rights, on the other hand, are specifically recognised in favour of the natural person who has created a work, and they are the sole, original and perpetual owner of these rights over their creation. These rights are inalienable, imprescriptible, irrevocable and non-transferable.

Moral rights over a work are fundamental in nature as they protect the connection between the author and their creation. In other words, they are inherent human capacities, such as the ability to invent, express ideas and determine the fate of one’s work.

One primary issue in various parts of the world has been the absence of a unified legal framework and the lack of clarity regarding the authorship and integrity of works generated by AI systems.

Last year, an individual applied to the National Copyright Institution (INDAUTOR) to register the digital work Virtual Avatar generated through an AI platform called “Leonardo”, identifying “Leonardo” as the entity for whom moral rights should be recognised. However, INDAUTOR denied the registration as the Federal Copyright Law requires works to be of human creation and to have the characteristic of originality as an expression of the author’s individuality and personality.

The idea underlying this is that a work is not merely an economic asset to be exploited; it is also an inherent projection of the author’s personality and creativity.

The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that AI works should be registrable because creativity should not be limited to humans. They claimed that excluding AI works implied a violation of human rights, the principle of equality and technological evolution, as well as contravened international treaties such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the Berne Convention. However, the Chamber upheld the refusal, in line with the criteria already established by INDAUTOR. Consequently, the applicant filed an Amparo lawsuit with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), claiming that the decision violated their rights to equality, legal certainty and non-discrimination.

The SCJN ruled that works created exclusively through AI cannot be protected by copyright in Mexico. Therefore, they are in the public domain, to be disseminated freely for the benefit of humanity. This means that such content cannot be registered or sold, although the systems that produce it can be.

The right to creative protection is a human right that guarantees recognition as an original work, which, by its very nature, is incompatible with AI.

The SCJN distinguished between works created by human beings – which involve intellect, consciousness, perception and emotions – and content generated by AI systems. Although these tools have made significant advances in simulating human intelligence, AI only processes information and data.

While it is true that some AI systems generate their own “original” content, this content is ultimately derived from human input.

Thus, it was concluded that AI does not possess sufficient autonomy or creativity to generate original works independently, as its results depend on the prior information with which it is trained. For a work to be eligible for protection, it must:

• be the product of human intellect;
• not consist of commonly used elements; and
• possess a distinctive characteristic that denotes originality.

Only individuals can be recognised as authors because they are the ones who can produce original works through their intellect, creativity, experiences and emotions. Consequently, products generated by AI should be considered part of the public domain. This does not prevent the programs or software used to design and refine AI from being registered as such. However, the results produced by these tools lack originality, as they are based on accumulated information that is the product of human creativity and therefore enters the public domain.

While the above criterion is already in place, the ruling did not provide anything new or useful for the future. The issue addressed by the SCJN was minimal, focusing on whether works generated entirely by generative AI tools could be entitled to moral rights. According to the law, this situation was already clear, highlighting the urgent need for updated legislation on this issue in Mexico.

Since 2020, over 50 legislative initiatives have been presented. The most recent projects include proposals to establish bodies such as the Mexican Agency for AI Development and the Mexican Ethics Council, as well as approaches to classify the risks of AI systems and prohibit malicious uses, similar to the European model.

However, none of these proposals has been successful or continued to be discussed in depth, highlighting the challenges of establishing a robust regulatory framework in this area.

In October 2025, the Senate of the Republic presented a bill to regulate AI in the country, proposing amendments to Articles 3 and 73 to recognise the right of access to the benefits of AI and empower Congress to legislate on the matter.

The bill also aims to establish a General AI Law setting out guiding principles, governance mechanisms, technical standards and risk assessment schemes. Recent studies reveal that Mexico leads Latin America in support for AI regulation, with 72% in favour, followed by Colombia (67%), Brazil (64%) and Argentina (56%).

Currently, AI should be understood as a creative tool rather than as a creator itself.

However, despite the criteria established thus far, it cannot be ruled out that, as AI evolves, it will necessitate legislative adaptation by creating new legal frameworks and/or modifying existing ones to address the challenges ahead.