Who Owns AI-Generated Art?

The rise of AI-generated content has sparked intense debates about ownership, originality, and copyright. With powerful AI tools now capable of creating detailed artworks, music, and written works, the question remains: Who truly owns AI-generated art? On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released Part 2 of its report on artificial intelligence and copyrightability. This document provides clarity on how AI-generated works fit within existing copyright laws, offering both reassurance and raising new concerns for artists, designers, and content creators

The Copyright Office reaffirmed that for a work to be copyrightable, it must have substantial human authorship. Simply generating an image by entering a text prompt into an AI model like Midjourney, DALL-E, or Stable Diffusion does not make the result eligible for copyright protection. This means that users cannot claim copyright on an AI-generated artwork simply because they wrote a complex prompt. The reasoning is that the AI model itself is responsible for the creative process, not the human providing the instructions.

While fully AI-generated works are not copyrightable, using AI as a tool within a broader creative process is allowed. If a human incorporates AI-generated elements into a larger, original work, that human-created portion can still be copyrighted. For example, a filmmaker using AI-generated backgrounds in a movie can still copyright the film as a whole. A musician using AI to generate a voice model for a song can copyright the final composition. A visual artist modifying an AI-generated image extensively in Photoshop could claim copyright over their modifications.

The report acknowledges that each case is unique and must be evaluated individually. There are no strict numerical thresholds for how much human effort is required to claim copyright. A compelling case study is the Randy Travis example included in the report. After a stroke, the country artist used AI to reconstruct his voice for a new recording. Since the AI only assisted in reproducing his unique vocal expression while humans made key creative decisions, the work was considered copyrightable. Conversely, an artist who hand-drew an illustration but used AI to enhance its realism saw only the original drawing protected under copyright, while the AI-generated enhancements remained uncopyrightable. This ambiguity has raised concerns about how artists should approach AI integration.

Despite the rapid advancement of AI, the Copyright Office determined that existing laws are sufficient to handle current AI-related copyright challenges. While the agency will continue to monitor legal and technological developments, no new copyright-specific AI laws are being proposed at this time.

A major issue raised by critics is the future burden of proof. If AI-generated works become indistinguishable from human-created ones, creators may need to prove their work wasn’t AI-generated to obtain copyright. This could impact digital artists who use AI-assisted tools, photographers whose cameras have AI-powered enhancements, and writers who use AI-based language tools for ideation and editing. Some fear that, eventually, artists might need to submit process documentation such as sketches, drafts, or screen recordings to validate their human contribution.

For artists using AI in their creative process, this report provides some clarity but also raises new challenges. You cannot copyright a purely AI-generated work. Using AI as a tool in a larger, original creation does not disqualify copyright. Expect case-by-case evaluations, meaning ambiguity remains for mixed AI-human works. Proving human authorship may become an important requirement in the future.

While AI technology continues to evolve, so too will copyright law. The Copyright Office has explicitly stated that it will revisit its conclusions as AI advances, meaning future policies could shift based on public feedback and legal challenges. The debate over AI and copyright is far from settled. Artists, technologists, and policymakers will need to work together to establish fair and practical guidelines that protect both human creativity and technological innovation.

For now, artists should continue to experiment with AI—but with an understanding of its legal limitations. The use of AI as a creative assistant is encouraged, but claiming full authorship over AI-generated content remains a legal gray area.

For more detailed information, you can access the full report on the U.S. Copyright Office’s website.