When utilizing AI tools such as image or text generators to create art, a significant question arises: Who owns the resulting work? More specifically, in legal terms, can you copyright and sell it while preventing others from doing the same?
This question is particularly pressing for those interested in commercializing AI-produced content. According to recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, the answer is quite complex.
Importantly, simply entering prompts into an AI generator does not fulfill the criteria necessary for authorship. The author, or artist, is defined as “the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression.”
Since AI systems operate autonomously to produce their outputs—despite being prompted by humans—they cannot meet this threshold. The Copyright Office asserts that too much of the output is generated independently of human input to still consider it produced by a person.
The report also emphasizes that the variability of outputs produced from identical prompts further demonstrates a lack of human control. The AI operates as a “black box,” interpreting user instructions in diverse ways.
Consequently, merely revising prompts does not alter this analysis or serve as justification for claiming copyright over the resulting output. However, it’s crucial to note that not all AI-assisted creations are ineligible for copyright.
The report clarifies that using AI tools to complement human creativity maintains copyright eligibility, as copyright protects original expression created by human authors, even when AI-generated elements are included. Determining how much AI involvement is “too much” to qualify as human creation remains subjective.
There is no clear boundary; authorship must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, legal understandings of these issues may evolve, as laws typically lag behind technological advancements.
Currently, these rulings apply specifically to the United States and do not carry the weight of law.