loader image

Is AI Content Copyrighted? Your Friendly Guide to Navigating the Legal Maze

is AI Content Copyrighted?

The world of content creation is buzzing with AI. From writing to art, music, and video, AI is changing everything. But this exciting new era brings up a big question: Who actually owns AI-generated content? It’s a complex legal puzzle, especially when it comes to copyright law.

Here at two-mation.com, we want to help creators use new tech without legal headaches. Knowing the rules lets you create freely and confidently. Many call the current AI copyright situation a “mess,” but we see it as a chance to help. When things are unclear, people really need clear, reliable information.

Giving you that clarity can make us a trusted source. This topic, about your legal rights and money, is super important. Google calls these “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL) topics. For these, Google really values content that shows deep understanding and trustworthiness.

This article will make AI copyright easy to understand. We’ll talk about human creativity, legal protections, and how to keep your work safe. We’ll look at what the U.S. Copyright Office says, share real examples, and even see what other countries are doing. It’s a developing situation, but understanding the basics is key for every creator.

The Golden Rule: Human Authorship is Non-Negotiable

Before we dive into AI, let’s quickly remember what copyright truly protects. Copyright law doesn’t protect an idea itself, like a concept for a novel or a catchy song. Instead, it protects the original expression of that idea once it’s put into a tangible form. Think of a written story, a recorded song, or a painting.

The main rule in the U.S. is that copyright protection is only for works created by humans. This isn’t a new idea; it’s a core principle that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has always stood by. In its recent reports, especially Part 2 from January 2025, the USCO confirmed its stance. Works made entirely by AI cannot be copyrighted.

The USCO even said that current laws are good enough. They believe no new laws are needed to give copyright protection to purely AI-made things. This “human authorship” rule isn’t just talk. A big court decision in March 2025, Thaler v. Perlmutter, clearly stated that a machine can’t be listed as the author of a copyrighted work.

Dr. Stephen Thaler tried to copyright an AI-created picture called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” but his request was denied. The court said that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires works to be “authored in the first instance by a human being.” This decision is like older cases, such as the famous “monkey selfie” case, where a monkey wasn’t given copyright.

The rule is simple: if a non-human, like an animal, a spirit, or an AI, is the only creator, copyright doesn’t apply. The court specifically said that “copyright has never stretched so far… to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand.”

This legal view has a big impact on creativity and money. If content made only by AI can’t be copyrighted, it basically becomes public domain. This means anyone can freely copy, use, and even sell it without asking for permission or paying. This greatly reduces the value of “easy” AI content from a legal standpoint.

To get copyright protection and control over their work, creators must add a clear level of human creativity and control. This means actively shaping, changing, and transforming what the AI produces. It highlights how important human artistic judgment and effort still are, even with more AI tools around.

When purely AI-generated works lack copyright, they become public domain. This can lower their commercial value and reduce the desire to create without human involvement. For creators, the message is clear: don’t avoid AI, but learn to use it as a powerful tool. This tool should boost human creativity, ensuring your work can be copyrighted and its value maximized.

AI as Your Co-Pilot: When AI-Assisted Content Gets Copyright Protection

As we’ve seen, if the main creative parts of a work were made by a machine, it won’t be registered for copyright. This means simple instructions or prompts given to AI software, even if they lead to complex art, probably won’t be copyrightable on their own.

The USCO draws a clear line: AI used as a “tool” by a human author is fine. But AI acting as a “stand-in” for human creativity is not. Think of it like a photographer using a camera. The camera is a tool, but the photographer’s choices in lighting, composition, and editing make the photo their copyrighted work.

Similarly, using AI to help or improve human expression doesn’t stop the human-authored work from being copyrightable. This includes things like brainstorming ideas, creating an outline, editing an image, or even using AI for voice in music. This approach fits how copyright law has always adapted to new technologies, from photography to digital media.

The key is “sufficient human creative input that meets the originality standard.” This isn’t a strict rule for everyone; whether AI-assisted works can be copyrighted is decided case by case.

Prompts Alone? Not Enough for Copyright!

You might think that a long, detailed prompt shows enough creative effort for copyright. But the USCO doesn’t agree. They see prompts as just “instructions that convey unprotectible ideas,” not the actual creative expression. The USCO says prompts “do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.”

They also feel prompts “do not appear to adequately determine the expressive elements produced.” Because AI models can be unpredictable, even the most detailed prompts don’t give the user “sufficient creative control over the resulting output to claim authorship.”

Imagine giving a chef a detailed recipe for a cake. The recipe writer provides the idea and instructions. But the chef (the AI) makes the creative choices in how to mix, bake, and present it. The copyright for the cake would usually go to the chef, not the recipe writer.

Similarly, the AI interprets and creates content based on its own algorithms and training data. This makes it hard to say the human user’s prompt alone is the author. For example, if you just ask an AI for “a cat smoking a pipe,” the AI fills in all the details. It decides the cat’s breed, color, size, pose, and even its clothes.

Because you didn’t control these specific creative elements, the image probably wouldn’t be copyrightable. Likewise, using a simple command to make many works usually won’t result in copyrightable content.

The Magic of Human Modification and Arrangement

This is where creators can really shine. If you take AI-generated content and then creatively change, edit, select, or arrange it, you can get copyright protection for your human contributions. This process lets you “control the selection and placement of individual creative elements.” This applies to “material modifications” and “creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs.”

It’s important to remember that copyright only covers the parts you contributed, not the original AI-generated content. But the work as a whole can be copyrighted if your human contributions meet the originality standard. This is decided on a case-by-case basis.

A famous example is the “Zarya of the Dawn” comic book case. The author, Kristina Kashtanova, used Midjourney to create images for her comic book. The USCO first gave copyright but later took it back for the AI-generated images. They only protected the human-written text and how she selected and arranged the images.

This was because Kashtanova made “creative choices” in how she picked and placed those images, and her text was all human-made. This case clearly showed that while AI-generated images themselves weren’t copyrightable, the human’s creative input in their arrangement and text was.

A more recent and successful example is “A Single Piece of American Cheese” by Kent Keirsey (February 2025). Artist Kent Keirsey got copyright for his image. He showed “a high degree of control” through many detailed changes. He used “AI-first Photoshop-esque tools” to pick areas, add elements, and refine details.

He even shared a video showing his many human steps, proving his creative decisions led to the final image. For music, if an AI makes musical bits, but a human then picks, reshapes, adds their own melodies, and arranges them into a song, those creative parts can get copyright. The more a creator “blends AI-generated music with their creativity,” the stronger their claim.

Similarly, for video, if you take many AI-generated video clips and creatively edit them into a new movie, your selection and arrangement of those clips can get copyright for the overall film.

Here’s a subtle but important point: AI is made to create content on its own. But the law (in the US, at least) requires human control over the final creative outcome to grant copyright. This isn’t just about giving initial instructions (prompts). It’s about the human actively shaping, refining, and making artistic decisions on the finished product.

This legal stance encourages AI developers to make tools that give more detailed human control over the output. This moves beyond simple text-to-image generation. Tools like Invoke, which let users “select regions and regenerate those with high degree of control,” are a direct response to this legal need. This suggests that “AI-assisted editing” and “iterative refinement” will become more important than pure “AI generation” for creators seeking copyright.

The need for clear human control over creative elements pushes AI tools to become more interactive and customizable. This helps creators meet copyright standards. Creators should choose AI tools that offer strong editing, modification, and iterative refinement features, not just one-shot generation.

Leveraging Your “Expressive Inputs”

What if you start with your own original, copyrighted work and then use AI to improve it? This is called providing “expressive inputs.” If you put your own copyrightable work (like an original drawing or text) into an AI system, and that original work is still “perceptible” in the AI’s output, you can claim authorship and copyright for that visible part. This is similar to how derivative works are protected.

For example, imagine a hand-drawn sketch. If you put it into an AI system and tell the AI to add details, make it look real, or add certain styles, and your original sketch is still clearly visible in the AI-generated output, you can claim copyright for the part of your original work that’s in the output.

The Legal Battleground: AI Training Data and Fair Use

The fast growth of AI models has caused a big legal storm. Many AI companies have been “very vague about what content they use” to train their models. This has led to over 30 lawsuits currently moving through U.S. courts.

Some of the major lawsuits include:

  • The New York Times vs. OpenAI & Microsoft (December 2023): This important case claims that millions of Times articles were used without permission to train ChatGPT and other AI systems. The lawsuit says these AI models can now create content that directly competes with the newspaper’s original reporting.
  • Getty Images vs. Stability AI (January 2023): The big stock photo company sued Stability AI in both London and the U.S. They claim the AI company copied over 12 million images from Getty’s collection without permission or payment. Getty even showed evidence of distorted Getty watermarks in Stability AI’s outputs, suggesting direct copying.
  • Authors’ Class-Action Lawsuits: A combined legal fight is happening against OpenAI and Microsoft. It’s brought by famous authors like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Michael Chabon, Junot Díaz, and Sarah Silverman. They claim their copyrighted works were used to train AI models without their consent.
  • Music Industry Lawsuits: In June 2024, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) filed separate lawsuits against music generation services Suno and Udio. The lawsuits claim these platforms copied “decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” without permission to train their AI music models.
  • Even CNET’s parent company, Ziff Davis, sued OpenAI in April 2024. They claim copyright infringement in training and running its AI systems.

These high-stakes lawsuits are likely to greatly affect how the U.S. legal system decides what is private and public property in the age of AI.

Understanding “Fair Use” and Why It’s a Hot Topic for AI Models

“Fair Use” is a special U.S. legal rule. It allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. This is for things like teaching, news reporting, commentary, criticism, or research. AI companies often argue that training their models on copyrighted data falls under “fair use.”

They specifically use the idea of “transformative use.” They say AI models take facts and statistical patterns (non-creative parts) from the data, not the original, creative parts. They argue this is a “transformative” use because the AI uses the data for a completely different purpose than the original creator.

However, copyright holders strongly disagree. A key part of fair use analysis is how it “affects the market” of the copyrighted work. If the AI’s output directly competes with the original author’s work, it makes the fair use defense weaker. The U.S. Copyright Office has said that fair use might not apply when AI developers use copyrighted works to train models that create “expressive content that competes with” original works in their markets.

Many creators and industry groups argue that “the pervasive copying of expressive works to train and fuel generative artificial intelligence systems is copyright infringement and not a fair use.”

The main argument in the fair use debate for AI training isn’t just about whether the act of training is transformative. Instead, the focus is shifting to whether the output created by the AI, because of that training, harms the market for the original copyrighted works. This moves the legal focus from how data is taken in to the economic impact and competition from the AI’s final output.

If courts increasingly agree with the “market harm” argument, AI developers might have to use more clear licensing models for their training data. This would greatly change the costs and possibly slow down the fast pace of AI development. It would also shift the power between AI companies and content creators.

When copyrighted works are used without permission for training, AI systems can create competing content. This then causes clear market harm to original creators. This market harm directly weakens the “fair use” defense for AI companies. While the USCO’s view on AI output copyright is fairly clear, the issue of AI training data is a complex and high-stakes legal battle. This area is a big risk for AI developers and a major worry for creators whose works might be used without their permission or payment.

This widespread lack of transparency about training data is a direct cause of the many copyright lawsuits. Creators can’t easily find out if their copyrighted works have been used to train AI models. This makes it very hard for them to protect their rights or agree on licensing deals.

The “vagueness” and the resulting lawsuits aren’t just isolated events. They are pushing for more regulation and required transparency in AI development worldwide. This trend is clear in the US (like the Biden-Harris administration’s AI Bill of Rights, though it’s not legally binding yet) and especially in the EU (EU AI Act). This suggests a future where AI companies might have to legally reveal their training data sources. They might also have to contribute to ways of paying creators.

The future of AI development, especially for large language models and generative AI, could be heavily shaped by these rules. This could fundamentally change the power dynamics and economic models between AI developers and the content creators whose works form the foundation of these systems.

Beyond Borders: A Quick Look at Global AI Copyright Views

The legal rules for AI copyright are not the same everywhere. Different regions are creating their own approaches, making a complex situation for international creators and businesses.

How the EU Approaches AI Copyright

Like the U.S., the EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) requires “originality.” This means a work must show the “author’s own intellectual creation” and “express the personality and free choices of a human author.” So, fully AI-generated content is generally unlikely to get protection under current EU law, much like in the U.S.

However, the EU has a specific way of handling AI training data. The EU Copyright Directive allows for commercial text and data mining (TDM) with an “opt-out” right for creators. This means AI developers can train their models on copyrighted material unless the copyright holder specifically says no.

The EU AI Act further strengthens this. It requires companies to provide a “sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training their models.” This transparency aims to help copyright holders use their opt-out rights. While “opt-out” is a step, some critics say it’s problematic. It could lead to incomplete datasets for AI training and legal uncertainties.

There’s a growing discussion for a “statutory remuneration right” instead of opt-outs. This would be a payment system, similar to those for private copying. It would ensure fair payment for creators and more complete, diverse training datasets.

The UK’s Unique “Computer-Generated Works” Provision and Ongoing Reforms

The UK stands out with a unique rule in its Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), Section 9(3). This section specifically recognizes “computer-generated works.” It says the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” A “computer-generated” work…source as one “generated by a computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work.”

This rule was originally made to encourage new technology. It aimed to assure investors that computer-generated outputs could be protected assets. However, figuring out “who made the necessary arrangements” (developer, operator, or user?) is still complex and often unclear.

Another key difference: AI-generated content in the UK gets copyright protection for only 50 years from its creation. This is much less than the lifetime plus 70 years for human-made works. Also, “moral rights” (like the right to be named as the author) don’t apply to AI-generated content.

The UK currently has “outlier” policies for Text and Data Mining (TDM). They are more restrictive than both the US and the EU, generally only allowing TDM for non-commercial research. Because of this, the UK government is actively looking at reforms. They are leaning towards an “opt-out” model similar to the EU. This aims to balance AI innovation with protecting creator rights.

A Nod to China’s Evolving Stance

While the U.S. and EU strictly require human authorship for AI-generated outputs, China has taken a different path. In February 2024, the Beijing Internet Court granted copyright to an AI-generated image for the first time. This decision was based on the human user’s significant creative input. This included providing over 150 detailed prompts and making changes to the AI’s output.

This showed enough human expression. This suggests a more practical, case-by-case approach that recognizes substantial human effort in AI-assisted creation.

The research shows a varied global picture. The US has strict human authorship for output. The EU requires human authorship for output and uses an opt-out for TDM. The UK has a unique “computer-generated works” rule and restrictive TDM (but is moving towards an EU opt-out). China recently granted copyright for an AI image with significant human input.

This isn’t just a small difference; it’s a big global split. This creates complex legal challenges for international AI companies and creators. The UK’s active discussions and move towards an EU-like opt-out system show the ongoing effort to balance AI innovation and creator rights.

China’s proactive copyright grant for highly human-modified AI art suggests a more practical, innovation-friendly approach to output copyright. This is a sharp contrast to the US’s strict human authorship rule. This fragmentation means creators and businesses working across borders must deal with many different legal rules. It also points to a push for AI regulation, with different places trying various models to find the best balance for their economies and creative industries. This will likely lead to continued legal changes and possible international agreements in the long run. Creators with international goals should be very aware of these different legal landscapes.

Your Playbook: Protecting Your Creations in the AI Era

Navigating the changing world of AI and copyright can feel overwhelming. But with the right approach, creators can use AI’s power while keeping their intellectual property safe. Here are practical tips for creators using AI:

  • Maximize Your Creative Control and Human Input: This is the most important thing to remember. Focus on using AI as a powerful tool to improve your creative process, not to replace human authorship. The more “perceptible human expression” and “free and creative choices” you put into the work, the stronger your copyright claim. This includes detailed prompts, many modifications, and careful arrangement.
  • Document Your Creative Process Meticulously: In this new era, proof is everything. Keep detailed records of your entire creative journey when using AI. Note your initial prompts, every change you made, specific modifications, how you selected outputs, and any human-made inputs. This documentation is vital evidence of your creative control and human authorship. Consider using tools that automatically track these changes, like Invoke’s “Provenance Records,” which helped in the “A Single Piece of American Cheese” case. It’s not enough to just have human input; you must be able to prove it. The responsibility to show enough human creative control falls on the human author. This means creators need to carefully document their entire creative process when using AI. This is a big change from traditional creative work, where such detailed records weren’t a main concern for copyright. This need will likely lead to new industry standards and software features for tracking creative history in AI-assisted work. This is especially true for professional creators and businesses seeking strong copyright protection. It also suggests that future AI detection tools might look for these “human fingerprints” in the creative process, not just in the final output.
  • Disclose AI Use for Copyright Registration: If you plan to register an AI-assisted work with the U.S. Copyright Office, it’s a must. If your work has more than a “de minimis” (very small) amount of AI-generated material, you must tell them. You also need to briefly explain your human contributions. For example, you might say you’re claiming copyright for the “selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements.” Not telling them can lead to your copyright being denied or even canceled.
  • Understand the Terms of Service for AI Platforms: Before you start creating, always read the small print! Different AI platforms have different rules about who owns and can use the content made on their platforms. Some might give you broad rights (including commercial use), while others might have limits, require you to credit the platform, or even claim ownership themselves. Knowing these terms upfront can save you a lot of trouble later.
  • Be Mindful of AI Training Data Origins: While the fair use debate is ongoing, be aware that AI outputs might accidentally look like copyrighted material they were trained on. This could lead to legal problems if your AI-generated content is too similar to existing works. Whenever possible, choose AI tools that clearly state they use legally obtained or licensed training data.
  • Avoid Reproducing Recognizable Characters or Brand Elements: Even if an AI creates it, using protected elements like famous characters, well-known brand logos, or even a voice that sounds “eerily” like a celebrity (like Scarlett Johansson’s claim against OpenAI) can cause big legal issues. Copyright and trademark laws still apply to these elements, no matter how they were generated.

To give you a quick summary, here’s a table outlining the copyright status of AI content based on human involvement:

Category of AI ContentCopyright Status (U.S. Law)Key Distinguishing Factors / ReasoningKey Action for Registration
Purely AI-Generated (e.g., simple prompt, no human modification)Not CopyrightableLacks human authorship; considered public domain. AI is the “author.”N/A (cannot be registered)
AI-Assisted (human uses AI as a tool for brainstorming, editing, etc., but creates the final expressive work)Copyrightable (human author)AI is merely a tool; human creates the expressive elements.Standard copyright registration (disclosure of AI use may be required if AI contribution is more than de minimis)
AI-Generated + Significant Human Modification/Arrangement (human creatively edits, selects, arranges AI output)Copyrightable (human author, but only for human contributions)Human exercises sufficient control over expressive elements through selection, arrangement, or material modifications.Disclosure of AI use is required, claiming only human contributions.
AI-Generated + Expressive Human Inputs (original human work fed into AI, perceptible in output)Copyrightable (human author, for perceptible original work)Human’s original work is perceptible and forms a basis for derivative copyright.Disclosure of AI use is required, claiming only the human-authored portion.

Ranking on Google: E-E-A-T and Helpful Content for AI Topics

To make sure this article not only informs you but also ranks high on Google, it’s important to follow Google’s main ranking rules. This is especially true for a “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL) topic like AI copyright.

Why Google Prioritizes Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-E-A-T)

In 2025, E-E-A-T is still Google’s main way to judge content quality. This is super important for YMYL topics like legal information, where being accurate and trustworthy is key. Google wants to make sure the content it ranks highest comes from “honest and trustworthy people… associated with your business and website.”

Google checks E-E-A-T by looking at “what the website or content creators say about themselves.” They also look at “what others say about the website or content creators.” Finally, they check “what is visible on the page itself, including content and reviews.”

How to Demonstrate E-E-A-T when Discussing AI and Copyright

  • Experience: It’s good to show, not just tell. While this content might not be written by lawyers, it shows experience in navigating these complex issues for creators. Using real-world examples, like the cases we discussed, helps explain points and shows a deep understanding of how things work in practice.
  • Expertise: Clearly show the expertise of the author or the brand (two-mation.com) in AI and content creation. If possible, adding “Reviewed by” notes from qualified legal experts can make it even more believable. This detailed report, with its in-depth research, is designed to show expertise.
  • Authoritativeness: Build authority by getting links from respected websites. These could be legal firms, tech publications, or industry leaders. Being mentioned in good media outlets or at industry conferences also helps. Most importantly, citing reliable sources, as we’ve done here, supports our claims and builds trust.
  • Trustworthiness: Make sure your website is secure with HTTPS. Provide clear contact information and transparent policies (like privacy and terms of service). Show positive customer reviews if you have them. Most importantly, make sure there are no errors—no grammar mistakes, broken links, or website issues—as these can make people lose trust.
  • Original Content & Topical Authority: Google prefers comprehensive, in-depth content. Don’t just repeat what’s already out there. Offer unique thoughts, original analysis, and cover the topic completely. This article aims to be the “best ever” by going deeper than competitors, giving more recent legal updates, and offering practical advice.

Writing for Your Audience First: The “People-First” Content Approach

Google’s March 2024 Core Update included the “Helpful Content System.” This means content should be made mainly to help people, not just to rank on search engines. Content must be very relevant to what the user is looking for. It should directly answer their questions and give useful insights.

It should offer solutions or information that truly meets their needs. As requested, the language here is clear, friendly, and conversational, like talking to a friend. This makes it easier to read and more engaging. While AI tools can help, human oversight and creativity are needed to ensure originality, relevance, and unique observations that AI alone can’t provide.

The focus is on making content engaging, trustworthy, and relevant to keep rankings strong in the future. Regularly updating content to reflect the latest information and trends, especially in a fast-changing field like AI copyright, is also very important.

Conclusions

The question “is AI content copyrighted?” has a complex answer. Generally, no, if it’s purely AI-generated. But yes, if there’s a lot of human creative input. The U.S. Copyright Office strongly believes human authorship is the foundation of copyright. They deny protection to works made only by machines.

However, if AI is used as a tool that helps or improves human creativity, the human contributions can be copyrighted. This includes making many changes, arranging things carefully, or adding human-made inputs. The key is showing clear human control over the creative parts of the work.

The situation is even more complicated by big lawsuits about AI training data and “fair use.” These legal battles, especially those looking at whether AI outputs compete with original human works, show a growing demand for transparency from AI developers. They also suggest a possible shift towards new ways of licensing or paying creators.

Around the world, approaches differ. The EU uses an “opt-out” system for data mining. The UK is looking at similar changes. China has shown a more practical view on copyrighting AI art that has been heavily modified by humans.

For creators, the way forward is to use AI as a powerful assistant while keeping human creative control. It’s essential to carefully document your creative process, understand the terms of AI platforms, and clearly state AI use when registering for copyright. By focusing on creating truly helpful, authoritative, and trustworthy content, creators can navigate this changing legal and technological world, protect their intellectual property, and succeed in the AI era.

FAQ

H4 What is the main rule for AI content copyright in the U.S.?

The main rule in the U.S. is that copyright protection requires human authorship. This means works created entirely by AI, without enough human creative input, are generally not copyrightable.

H4 Can I copyright something I made with AI if I used a detailed prompt?

No, just giving a detailed prompt to an AI is usually not enough for copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office sees prompts as ideas or instructions, not the actual creative expression. They say prompts don’t give you enough control over the AI’s unpredictable output to claim authorship.

H4 What kind of human involvement makes AI-generated content copyrightable?

AI-generated content can be copyrightable if a human makes significant creative contributions. This includes:

  • Modifying or arranging AI-generated material in a creative way.
  • Using your own original work as an input, where your original expression is clearly visible in the AI’s output.
  • Using AI as a tool to assist your creative process (e.g., for brainstorming or editing), where the final expressive work is still your human creation.

H4 Do I have to tell the Copyright Office if I used AI to create my work?

Yes, if you plan to register your AI-assisted work with the U.S. Copyright Office, you must disclose if it contains more than a very small amount of AI-generated material. You also need to explain your human contributions to the work.

H4 What is “Fair Use” and how does it relate to AI?

“Fair Use” is a legal rule that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like commentary, criticism, news reporting, or research. AI companies often argue that using copyrighted data to train their models falls under fair use. However, copyright holders are challenging this, especially when AI outputs compete directly with their original works in the market.

H4 Is AI content copyrightable in other countries like the UK or EU?

The EU generally agrees with the U.S. that human authorship is needed for AI-generated outputs to be copyrightable. However, for AI training data, the EU allows commercial text and data mining with an “opt-out” right for creators. The UK has a unique law that allows copyright for “computer-generated works” where the author is the person who made the “necessary arrangements” for its creation, though this is still being debated. China has shown a more open stance, granting copyright to an AI-generated image with significant human modification.

Sources

Related Posts

Scroll to Top