You can't assume AI-made work is yours in the copyright sense. It depends on how much a person shaped the result, and on which country's rules apply. Here are the questions to ask.
Questions about the work itself
Did a person write, draw or arrange the main creative parts? Works "where the expressive elements are determined by a machine" are described as still uncopyrightable under US Copyright Office guidance.1
Did you shape the output with your own expression? The same summary says AI-assisted works can be copyrighted where the human's creative expression "remains evident in the work". Typing a prompt and taking the first result is a different case from rewriting and redrawing.1
Did you choose and arrange AI pieces in your own way? A composite work was registered in the US in January 2025 on the basis of "human-driven selection, arrangement, and coordination".1
Is a machine the only maker? US courts in the District of Columbia have upheld the Copyright Office's "refusal to register copyrights for works generated solely by machines".1
Rules differ by country
| Country | What the sources say |
|---|---|
| United States | Registration was refused for works made solely by machines, and courts upheld that.1 |
| United Kingdom | For a computer-generated work, the 1988 Act names as author "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken". Wikipedia says that rule "relates to autonomous creations by computer programs" (where there is "no direct human input"), and that "Individuals using AI tools will usually be the authors of the works assuming they meet the minimum requirements for copyright work".1 The government has also asked for views on "copyright protection for computer-generated works", so the position is not settled. Check the UK government or UK IPO pages for the current position.2 |
| Australia | The Attorney-General's Department lists "improving certainty on the application of copyright law to material generated through the use of AI" as a priority. That suggests it isn't settled.3 |
If you trade in more than one country, don't assume one answer covers them all.
What the tool's terms add
Terms may say you own the output. OpenAI's terms give you the output "to the extent permitted by applicable law".4 That phrase means the terms don't tell you what copyright law itself says.
Someone else may get the same thing. The same terms warn that "output may not be unique and other users may receive similar output from our Services".4 So exclusive ownership of a plain AI result is hard to count on.
Read more on what AI tool terms say about ownership.
What a business can do
Keep your own contribution on record. Save drafts, edits, sketches and notes that show what a person wrote, drew or chose.
Add real human work to anything that matters. A logo, a book, a training manual or a core product description deserves more than a raw output.
Don't tell customers you hold exclusive rights unless you've checked. Keep claims modest.
Go to the official source for your country. See what the copyright offices say about AI. For a decision with money behind it, ask a lawyer. This page is general information, not advice.
Notes and sources
- Artificial intelligence and copyright, Wikipedia
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, UK Intellectual Property Office
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG), Attorney-General's Department (Australia)
- Terms of use, OpenAI
Keep reading
What the official copyright offices say about AIWhat the US Copyright Office, IP Australia, the Attorney-General's Department and the UK government have published about AI and copyright.
Using AI-made images in business materialsA checklist for putting an AI-made image on a website, flyer or social post, covering ownership, lookalikes, watermarks and the tool's terms.
Pasting other people's work into an AI toolBefore you paste an article, photo or document you don't own into a chatbot, check what the tool's terms say you promise and who is responsible.