Generative artificial intelligence has exploded from a niche concept into a mainstream business tool. Companies are using AI to draft marketing copy, design products, write code, and create stunning visual art. This technology promises unprecedented efficiency and innovation. However, it also opens a legal Pandora’s box, leaving creators and businesses grappling with fundamental questions about copyright law.
Who owns an image created by an AI prompt? Can you copyright a novel co-written with a machine? Is it copyright infringement when an AI model trains itself on millions of protected images from across the internet? These are not hypothetical scenarios; they are active legal battles shaping the future of intellectual property. As this new technological frontier expands, understanding the legal landscape is essential for protecting your work and your business.
The Core Conflict: How Generative AI Challenges Copyright
Copyright law was designed to protect human creativity. It grants authors, artists, and creators exclusive rights to their original works. Generative AI disrupts this foundation by introducing a non-human element into the creative process. The legal system is now racing to apply century-old principles to technology that operates in ways its drafters could never have imagined.
The conflict primarily revolves around three key areas: the training data used by AI models, the question of authorship for AI-generated content, and the concept of fair use.
1. The Training Data Dilemma
Generative AI models, like OpenAI’s DALL-E or Midjourney, learn their skills by analyzing massive datasets. These datasets often contain billions of images, texts, and code snippets scraped from the public internet. A significant portion of this data is protected by copyright.
Content creators and companies, from individual artists to major news outlets like The New York Times, have filed lawsuits against AI developers. They argue that using their copyrighted material to train commercial AI models without permission or compensation constitutes large-scale copyright infringement.
AI companies counter that their use of this data falls under the “fair use” doctrine. They claim that training a model is a “transformative” use, as the AI is learning patterns and styles rather than simply reproducing the original works. The outcomes of these lawsuits will set a critical precedent for how AI models can be developed in the future.
2. Who is the Author?
A core principle of copyright law is that a work must have a human author to be protectable. The U.S. Copyright Office has been firm on this point. It has repeatedly denied copyright registration for works created entirely by AI without any human creative input.
One of the most famous examples is the case of computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who attempted to copyright an image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” on behalf of his AI system, DABUS. The Copyright Office refused, and federal courts upheld the decision, ruling that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
This creates a significant problem for businesses that rely on AI-generated content. If you use an AI to create a logo, a piece of music, or marketing text, you may not be able to claim ownership of it. This means a competitor could potentially use the same content without facing legal consequences, severely undermining your brand’s uniqueness.
3. The Gray Area of “Sufficient Human Input”
The legal landscape becomes murkier when a human works collaboratively with an AI. The U.S. Copyright Office has acknowledged that works containing AI-generated material might be copyrightable if a human’s creative contributions are significant enough.
For instance, in the case of the comic book Zarya of the Dawn, the creator was granted copyright for the story and the arrangement of the images but not for the individual images themselves, which were generated by Midjourney. This ruling highlights a critical distinction: your creative arrangement, selection, and modification of AI-generated content may be protectable, but the raw AI output is not.
The challenge for businesses is determining where the line for “sufficient human authorship” lies. How much editing is enough? Does crafting a highly detailed and creative prompt count as authorship? These questions are still being debated and will likely be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Why Your Business Needs an Intellectual Property Attorney
Navigating the intersection of generative AI and copyright is not something to be taken lightly. The legal ground is constantly shifting, and a misstep can lead to wasted investment, legal disputes, or the inability to protect your valuable brand assets. Attempting to handle these complexities without expert guidance is a significant risk.
An experienced intellectual property attorney is an invaluable partner in this new environment. Here’s how they can help:
1. Assessing Copyrightability and Risk
Before you invest heavily in an AI-generated brand identity or product, an attorney can help you assess the risks. They can analyze the creative process to determine if there is enough human authorship to support a copyright claim. This early analysis can save you from building a brand around assets you can’t own or defend.
2. Developing Internal AI Usage Policies
If your employees are using generative AI tools, your business needs a clear and comprehensive policy. An attorney can help you draft guidelines that govern how AI can be used, what tools are approved, and how to document human creative input. This policy can minimize your company’s risk of infringing on others’ copyrights and ensure you have the best possible claim to the content you create.
3. Navigating Licensing and Third-Party Rights
When using AI-generated content, you must understand the terms of service of the AI platform you are using. Some platforms grant users commercial rights to the outputs, while others are more restrictive. An IP attorney can review these complex agreements and advise you on what you can and cannot do with the content, helping you avoid a breach of contract.
4. Defending Your Intellectual Property
If you find that a competitor is using your AI-assisted creative work, an attorney can help you evaluate your options. They can build a case demonstrating your significant creative contribution, sending cease-and-desist letters and, if necessary, representing you in litigation. Likewise, if you are accused of infringement for your use of AI, an attorney is your first and best line of defense.
Protect Your Creative Future
Generative AI is a powerful tool with the potential to transform industries. However, its integration into the business world comes with profound legal challenges that cannot be ignored. The law is still catching up to the technology, and the precedents set in the coming years will define the rules of engagement for creators and innovators.
Don’t let your business become a cautionary tale in the evolving story of AI and copyright. Proactive legal guidance is the best way to harness the power of artificial intelligence while protecting your most valuable assets.
The team at Business Law Southwest is dedicated to helping businesses navigate complex intellectual property challenges. If you are using or considering using generative AI, contact us today to ensure your creative work is protected.
Business Law Southwest. Business law that makes business sense.
