Laws, precedents, comparative case law, international sources, and doctrine invoked by one party or the other. The label indicates who uses it.
Precedents and jurisdictional criteria (Mexico)
Judgment / Administrative Litigation Proceeding 788/24-EPI-01-2 (TFJA, Specialized Chamber on Intellectual Property, August 30, 2024) both
Core precedent. It establishes that for something to be a protectable 'work' the following must concur: 1) creation of the human intellect, 2) originality (not a copy or mere aggregation, with a selection of aspects that make it a creative expression), 3) fixation in a material medium; in that case the aim was to attribute authorship to the AI. INDAUTOR cites it to deny; the applicant reinterprets it to argue that he meets the three elements and that the ruling does not prohibit AI-assisted works. Isolated judgment (not binding jurisprudence, according to the plaintiff).
Thesis IX-CASE-PI-3 of the TFJA (August 30, 2024) Applicant
Distinction between works 'created by' AI (without substantial human creative intervention, not protectable) and works 'created with the help of' AI (with human creative direction, protectable). The plaintiff places his case in the second category. The documents do not clarify whether it is the same matter as 788/24 or a different one.
Amparo en revisión 6/2025, Second Chamber of the SCJN both
Invoked by INDAUTOR in the answer to the complaint to argue that 'las obras sujetas a registro y protección son producto de la creación humana en tanto un ente sintético o artificial no pueden crear una obra original'. The plaintiff argues that it resolved a case where the AI was sought as author, a different scenario.
Amparo directo en revisión 131/2021, First Chamber SCJN both
Criterion that creativity/authorship rests solely with a natural person. Cited by INDAUTOR in the requirement notices; the response agrees that authorship rests with natural persons. NOTE: the notice cites an 'ejecutoria de 16 de junio de 2016', a date earlier than the case number (131/2021) — a possible clerical error preserved verbatim.
Controversia Constitucional 31/2000; Amparo en Revisión 240/2011 (SCJN en banc, Feb 27, 2012); Thesis P. CLXVIII/97; Isolated thesis I.4o.A.91 A Applicant
Grounds for the ultra vires claim: authorities cannot create prohibitions/criteria not contemplated; they may only do that for which they are expressly empowered; acts without competence are afflicted by absolute, incurable nullity. Used by the applicant.
Thesis VII-P-SS-7 of the TFJA Applicant
Dismissal under art. 17-A LFPA applies when the requirement is not complied with, not when the authority deems the response insufficient. Central point of the grievance over the incorrect application of 17-A. Used by the applicant.
Set of SCJN/TCC and TFJA theses cited in the complaints and closing arguments Applicant
On consistency/congruence (P./J. 109/99, P. XCIX/2007, I.1o.A.70 A / I.1o.A.E.70 A, VII.2o.A.299 A), distortion of sources (P./J. 109/2001, P./J. 47/2003, I.3o.A.1022 A, VII-P-2a-150), technical errors (P./J. 91/2007, P./J. 156/2009, VII.1o.A.89 A, VII-P-3a-67), case-by-case analysis/arbitrariness (P./J. 106/2006, P./J. 47/2008, 1a./J. 15/2012, P./J. 89/2009, VII-P-2a-89), evolutionary interpretation/pro persona (1a./J. 67/2009, 2a./J. 89/2011, P./J. 15/2014), assessment of evidence (1a./J. 23/2011, 2a./J. 67/2009, P./J. 89/2012, 1a./J. 45/2010, 2a./J. 78/2011, P./J. 23/2013), legal grounds/reasoning (P./J. 47/95, 1a./J. 54/2008) and statutory reservation (P./J. 47/2005, P./J. 185/2005). Used by the applicant. NOTE: their existence, validity, numbering and exact text COULD NOT be verified; several appear generic/adapted and must be corroborated in the SJF/TFJA.
Applicable statute and regulations (Mexico)
Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor (LFDA), arts. 3, 5, 11, 12 both
Art. 3 (original creative work in any form/medium; basis for technological neutrality); art. 5 (protection from fixation; declaratory registration); art. 11 (copyright); art. 12 (author = natural person). INDAUTOR uses them to deny authorship to AI; the applicant to uphold human authorship, originality and the declaratory nature of registration.
LFDA, art. 6 Applicant
Function of the Public Registry of Copyright: to guarantee legal certainty, not to grant/deny the status of author. Used by the applicant for the declaratory nature.
LFDA, art. 13 (and frac. XII) Applicant
Presumption of authorship; fraction XII mentions photography as a category of work (used in the tool analogy). Used by the applicant.
LFDA, art. 14 Applicant
Subject matter not protectable by copyright (catalog). The applicant argues that the work does not fall within any of them.
LFDA, art. 162 INDAUTOR
Purpose of the Public Registry of Copyright (legal certainty). Invoked by INDAUTOR regarding the name discrepancy in folio ...254000-01.
LFDA, arts. 163 and 164 Applicant
Art. 163: presumption of good faith of the applicant. Art. 164: closed and restrictive catalog of grounds for denial of registration. The applicant argues that the use of AI does not appear as a ground and that INDAUTOR does not indicate under which one it falls.
LFDA, arts. 208, 209 (frac. III) and 210 (frac. V) both
Registration procedure before the RPDA. INDAUTOR cites them as a jurisdictional/procedural basis; the applicant argues that art. 210 frac. V (substantive ground for dismissal) was the correct basis instead of art. 17-A LFPA, and that art. 209 limits the registry's jurisdiction.
LFDA, arts. 18, 19 (frac. II) and 21 Applicant
Moral rights of the author (paternity), perpetual and inalienable. Invoked by the applicant to uphold the violation of paternity over the work.
LFDA, art. 10 INDAUTOR
Supplementary application of the Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo. Invoked by INDAUTOR.
LFDA, art. 237 both
Admissibility and time limit of the appeal for review, made known to the affected party in dismissals. Cited by INDAUTOR and by the applicant when analyzing avenues of challenge.
Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo (LFPA), art. 17-A both
Dismissal for failure to respond to the request for correction. Central basis of the dismissal; the applicant alleges its incorrect application because a response was indeed filed (supported by Tesis VII-P-SS-7 of the TFJA).
LFPA, arts. 3, 15, 15-A frac. II, 19, 38, 46, 69-C, 83 both
Foundations of the procedure: presumption of validity of acts except for lack of jurisdiction (art. 3); rules on requests for correction (15, 15-A, 19, 69-C); circumstances of the case (38); objective assessment of evidence (46); admissibility of the appeal for review (83). Used by INDAUTOR (request for correction/appeal) and by the applicant (validity/assessment).
Reglamento de la LFDA, arts. 53, 55, 103 frac. IV and 105 INDAUTOR
Regulatory basis for the request for correction/requirement and for the registry procedure, invoked by INDAUTOR.
Reglamento Interior del INDAUTOR (arts. 3 frac. I, 6, 8 fracs. XII, XVI, XX, 9, 16, 17) and Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría de Cultura (arts. 2-B-IV, 26, 27) INDAUTOR
Basis for the jurisdiction of the issuing authority (Subdirección de Registro de Obras y Contratos / Departamento de Inscripción de Obras).
Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal (arts. 26 and 41 Bis frac. XVIII); Ley General de Mejora Regulatoria (art. 84); Decreto de creación de la Secretaría de Cultura (DOF 17-dic-2015) INDAUTOR
Organic/jurisdictional foundations cited by INDAUTOR.
Ley de Firma Electrónica Avanzada (arts. 7 and 9 frac. I) and its Reglamento (art. 12); Acuerdos de firma electrónica (DOF 19-may-2021) and de registro en línea (DOF 8-dic-2021) INDAUTOR
Support for the validity of the advanced electronic signature and of the INDARELÍN system; cited by INDAUTOR.
Ley Federal de Procedimiento Contencioso Administrativo (LFPCA), arts. 1, 2, 5 (frac. II / último párrafo), 14 (fracs. I y V), 47, 58-k Applicant
Admissibility of the ordinary nullity proceeding (1, 2); authorization of the representative/attorney (5); requirements of the complaint and domicile (14); submission of closing arguments (47). Used by the applicant.
Código Federal de Procedimientos Civiles (CFPC), arts. 46 frac. I and 78 Applicant
Art. 46 frac. I (supplementary): uncontested facts are deemed true (basis of the 'tacit confession'). Art. 78: exhaustive assessment of evidence. Used by the applicant.
Constitución (CPEUM), arts. 1, 6, 14, 16, 25, 28 both
Art. 1 (pro persona, dismissed by INDAUTOR to exclude foreign law / used by the applicant for the validity of comparative case law); art. 14 (hearing, cited by INDAUTOR); art. 16 (legal grounds, reasoning, congruence, legality — the core of the applicant's grievances); arts. 6 and 25 (technological neutrality/innovation); art. 28 (protection of copyright).
Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor — reform initiative (Senado de la República, late 2023) Applicant
Proposal to include/protect works 'derived from'/'generated with the aid of' AI systems with an identifiable author and significant contribution (provision of inputs and direction/control). Cited by the applicant as a regulatory trend.
Comparative case law and criteria (U.S.)
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (U.S., 1884) Applicant
Photography is protectable despite the mechanical process because it reflects creative decisions; analogy of AI as a neutral instrument. Used by the applicant.
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithograph Co. (U.S., 1903) Applicant
Minimum threshold of creativity; the authority must not judge artistic merit. Used by the applicant (especially in the Midjourney file).
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (US Supreme Court, 1991) Applicant
The level of creativity required is extremely low (a mere 'spark' suffices). Used by the applicant on the standard of originality.
Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. District Court, 2023) Applicant
Denial of registration to an image 100% generated by AI with the machine as author. Used by the applicant in his favor: here AI is not put forward as author.
U.S. Copyright Office: directrices/guidance and case 'A Single Piece of American Cheese' (2024); 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability' (enero 2025) Applicant
Case-by-case evaluation of the degree of human intervention; registration for 'selection, coordination and arrangement' of AI material; sufficiently detailed prompts as intellectual activity. Used by the applicant (and to evidence INDAUTOR's double standard, which accepted WIPO 2017 but rejected the USCO 2024-2025).
Doctrine
Doctrine cited by INDAUTOR: Vicente (2021), 'Minería de textos y datos como (nuevo) límite al derecho de autor', p. 32; Cárdeno (2025), 'La inteligencia artificial como sujeto titular de derechos...', p. 74 both
Vicente: data mining and risk to third-party rights (the applicant alleges a semantic inversion: the work proposes mining as an exception/new limit). Cárdeno: AI autonomy/self-learning (the applicant alleges decontextualization).
Doctrine cited by the applicant: Pamela Samuelson, 'AI Authorship Revisited' (Communications of the ACM, Vol. 68 No. 7, 2025); Guadamuz & Cabell (2014); Mei (2024, arXiv:2406.11844); Mukherjee & Chang (2025, arXiv:2504.04058); Perritt (2024); Bryant Walker Smith; Ryan Calo; Linares-Pellicet et al. (2024) Applicant
International academic doctrine on the spectrum of human-AI collaboration, prompt engineering as an intellectual activity, 'fluid autonomy', mining as an exception, and the prohibition against anthropomorphizing algorithmic technologies. Used by the applicant.
Mexican and comparative administrative/IP doctrine: López Olvera (UNAM), Oscar Fernando Hernández Bautista (SCJN), García de Enterría y Fernández, Roberto Dromi, Juventino V. Castro, David Rangel Medina, Eduardo Pallares Applicant
Support for objective legality, administrative consistency, ultra vires/legislative omissions, indeterminate legal concepts, interpretation of the LFDA, and assessment of evidence. Used by the applicant.
