The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has significantly altered the process of creating art, resulting in numerous legal challenges, especially in copyright law. Article 1, paragraph 2 of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright Act acknowledges that the creator is a human entity. The law stipulates that a creator is an individual or a group of individuals who generate original works through their intellectual capabilities. The copyright law framework in Indonesia is anchored in an antiquated paradigm that emphasises the author as a human entity, encountering difficulties in adapting to contemporary artworks generated with the assistance of AI technology. The presence of AI as a non-human entity complicates the understanding of the creation process, the notion of originality, and the role of human intellect, resulting in legal ambiguity concerning the copyright protection of AI-generated works under the relevant legal framework in Indonesia. This research employs a normative juridical method utilising legislative, conceptual, and comparative legal perspectives. This research is prescriptive, analysing core legal materials, such as the Copyright Act, and secondary materials, including legal literature on copyright and AI-generated art. The study seeks to conduct a legal analysis of copyright protection for paintings generated by artificial intelligence. The findings suggest that individuals involved in the creative process can be acknowledged as the creators of AI-generated artworks, provided they fulfil the criteria of originality and contribute intellectually to the creation process. This necessitates normative clarity in the Copyright Act to prevent bias or ambiguous interpretations. The Act has not expressly established the criteria for copyright protection of contemporary AI-generated artworks, notably concerning new standards for originality and human intellectuality, resulting in legal ambiguity for producers and practitioners of modern art. A normative claim in the Act must establish that the utilisation of AI in the creation of artworks, including paintings, is seen as an auxiliary tool or technological instrument, rather than the primary creator. This explanation is essential to prevent ambiguous interpretations concerning the status of AI and to enhance the coherence of the Act with Hegel's theory of personality and Locke's theory of property, both of which prioritise individuals in the context of legal rights and obligations.