This article does not address the declaration of AI in academic work, nor does it determine authorship of the result in isolation. It examines when an open call, a contract or the commercial presentation of a work requires disclosure of the tools used. For those other matters, consult How to declare the use of AI in academic work and Authorship and works created with AI under Spanish law.
In August 2022, Jason Allen won the first prize for digital art at the Colorado State Fair with Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, an image created with Midjourney. The category's rules permitted digital manipulation and did not mention artificial intelligence. The award was upheld, amidst a controversy that resonated globally.
Eight months later, in April 2023, the German photographer Boris Eldagsen won a category of the Sony World Photography Awards with The Electrician, a black-and-white portrait that was not a photograph: he had generated it with AI. Eldagsen declined the award. His explanation was that AI images and photography should not compete in such an award, because they are distinct practices: "AI is not photography".
Two cases, two lessons
The Allen case represents the problem: rules written before the tool existed, and a jury that did not know what it was awarding. The Eldagsen case serves as a partial precedent: it compelled the organisers, and the sector, to distinguish between photography and generated imagery and to draft explicit rules.
However, that precedent has a clear limitation. It was a decision by the artist himself, not a regulation. Had Eldagsen accepted the award, nothing would have prevented him from doing so.
Allen subsequently encountered another boundary. The United States Copyright Office refused to register the elements of the image generated by Midjourney as his own, without denying protection to what he had contributed.
What European law currently requires
From 2 August 2026, Article 50 of the EU AI Act applies. It mandates notification when generated content imitates real people, places or events and could be mistaken for authentic. For artistic, creative, satirical or fictional works, there is a special rule: it suffices to disclose that generated or manipulated content exists, in an appropriate manner that does not hinder exhibition or enjoyment.
It is not an exemption: it must be stated. However, it may be stated on the wall label or in the credits, without marking the work itself. Under this rule, The Electrician, a realistic portrait of a non-existent person, would have had to be exhibited with a notice.
What remains unregulated
Outside of that scenario, there is no general obligation in Spain to declare the use of AI when selling a work; only the prohibition against deceiving the purchaser applies. Furthermore, open calls operate independently. I have searched for recent Spanish award rules with clauses regarding AI to compare, and I have not found three with a primary source. Each open call decides, and many have yet to decide anything at all.
The lesson pending from the Allen case
In my view, the problem with Allen was rules that did not ask what mattered, rather than the AI itself. Four years later, many open calls remain the same. The minimum reasonable rule is not to prohibit AI, but to require that it be declared: which tool, in which part of the work and what the artist decided. That declaration protects the jury, the public and the artist themselves, who will need to demonstrate their contribution to defend their authorship.
I explain how to make that declaration in the guide on declaring the use of AI in an artwork, a sale or an open call.
About the open conversation
This text separates the data from my interpretation and does not constitute legal advice. If you organise open calls, serve on juries or work with AI in your practice and wish to clarify a point or discuss this reading, this notebook remains open: write to me.
The author's relationship with the cases
There is no economic, professional, or collection-based relationship with the individuals, companies, and institutions cited.