Who Really Owns AI-Generated Content? A Look at Copyright Laws in the UK, India, and the US

The law is being tested in courts and there is no clear answer. But, if your business has AI aspects, you should read on.

As artificial intelligence (AI) grows more advanced, we are seeing a wave of AI-generated content that ranges from art and music to text and even entire novels. But when it comes to who owns this content, the law hasn’t quite caught up with the technology. This leaves us with a big question: who gets credit (and copyright protection) when AI is the creator? And what are the criteria to determine authorship and originality of work product? Here, we’ll explore how copyright laws in the UK, India, and the US approach  to AI-generated content, and where things might be headed.

At Legally Wired, we offer insights that look beyond the basics of the law. Each article concludes with actionable steps to help you assess potential risks and practical ways to reduce them, empowering you to make informed, proactive choices for your business.

Why Originality Matters in Copyright

Copyright protection isn’t handed out for every type of creation. For something to be copyrighted, it generally has to be “original”. In most cases, this means it should have a unique touch, usually added by a human. Different countries define this “originality” in their own ways:

• UK: They use a standard called “the author’s own intellectual creation,” which means the work must have some personal input.

  
  

• US: Here, the work only needs a “modicum of creativity”, which is a fancy way of saying there should be at least a bit of human creative effort.

  
  

• India: This standard sits somewhere between the UK and US, with a focus on “skill and judgement”.

  
  

With AI, things get tricky because it’s the machine—trained on vast datasets and guided by algorithms—that’s creating the content. So, is AI output truly “original” if no human added a personal touch?

Who’s the Real “Author” of AI-Generated Content?

Traditionally, the person who creates something is the author, and they own the copyright. But with AI in the picture, things get murky. There are a few possible “authors” to consider:

• The AI Developers: These are the people who build the AI system, train it, and tweak it. They have in some way contributed to what the AI produces, but that can vary depending on the type of AI.

  
  

• The Users: This includes anyone who uses the AI and gives it prompts or parameters to generate content. The user’s input can influence the final output, but how much control or contribution do they really have?

  
  

Sometimes, it might make sense to consider both the developer and the user as co-authors, but only if they both make inseparable contributions. Unfortunately it becomes difficult to establish whose contribution is inseparable.

How Different Countries Approach AI and Copyright

Let’s look at how the UK, India, and the US tackle the tricky issue of AI authorship.

The UK: Trying a Unique Approach

The UK stands out because it has a law that addresses computer-generated works. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that for works with no human author, the copyright goes to the person who makes arrangements necessary for the creation of the work, provided that such work is original work. Essentially, this could be the developer or maybe even the user, depending on the case.

But there is an interpretational problem:  How do we define “original” when no human created the content? The law doesn’t clarify this, so courts are left to interpret it case by case.

India: Sticking to Human Authorship

India’s Copyright Act 1957 also mentions computer-generated works, saying the “author” is the one who “causes the work to be created”. But a simple, single-line prompt wouldn’t be enough to earn copyright—there has to be real human effort involved.

Indian courts might use what’s called the “Significant Input Test” to determine if the human input is substantial enough to qualify for copyright. If a human didn’t put in significant creative effort, AI-generated work may not get copyright protection at all.

The US: A Hardline Stance on Human Authorship

The US is very strict about authorship. The US Copyright Office insists that copyright only applies to human-created works. This stance was reinforced in a recent case known as Zarya of the Dawn, where a graphic novel lost copyright protection for images generated by AI.

In the US, AI can assist in the creative process, but there has to be a clear human influence in the final product. Without that, the work isn’t eligible for copyright. The criteria for the human influence remains untested.

Key Questions in AI-Generated Copyright

Here are some questions that come up when dealing with copyright for AI-generated works:

• Who’s the Author? Is it the developer, the user, or a combination? This often depends on who has more control and creative input.

  
  

• Is It Original? Does the content meet the originality standards of each country? For example, would it be considered original if a human had not substantially created it?

  
  

• Is It Derivative? Could the AI output be seen as a rehash of pre-existing works in its training data? This raises further copyright concerns, especially if the output closely resembles protected content.

  
  

The Future of AI and Copyright

As AI technology keeps evolving, copyright laws will need to keep up. Here’s where things might go in the future:

• Clearer Originality Standards: We may see more specific guidelines on how much human input is required for AI-assisted works to qualify for copyright protection.

  
  

• Recognizing Machine Authorship: Some countries might consider creating a unique type of copyright for AI-generated works. This could involve a new system that recognizes AI’s creative role without equating it to human creativity.

  
  

• Contracts to Define Ownership: Expect to see more contractual agreements between developers, users, and platforms, defining who owns or can license AI-generated content.

  
  

Conclusion: The Complex Intersection of AI and Copyright

As AI-generated content becomes more common, countries will need to adapt their copyright laws. For now, different jurisdictions have different takes on how to handle it, but one thing is clear: the legal world is only beginning to understand the impact of AI on creativity. Balancing the rights of human creators with the potential of AI will require ongoing discussions and likely some big legal changes.

In working with our clients, we increasingly note that across industries clients are implementing robust AI risk analysis when engaging vendors. For instance, brands have adopted AI diligence as part of their RFPs.

The broad frameworks we help our clients that use AI in in their business are to implement the following:

• Implement an AI Policy within the organization to have managed processes to track what work products have contributions from AI tools

• Maintain a log of the prompts used to generate your content

• Consider the contractual terms of the tools you use to be aware of ownership rights, liabilities and disclaimers.

• Ensure to address the issues we have highlighted here when signing contracts with vendors who may use AI in work delivered to you.  

In today’s evolving landscape, each industry adheres to specific guidelines drawn from agency advisories, case law, and privacy regulations. Developing robust, business-specific policies is essential for staying ahead