AI is writing books, composing music, and designing logos. It’s also raising many legal questions.
This new creative frontier is exciting, but it’s also confusing. Creatives are navigating uncertainty around ownership, contracts, and what the law protects. We’ve worked with hundreds of people to determine where AI fits into their processes.
Generative AI creates wild new challenges and opportunities for creators.
Since AI doesn’t seem to be going anywhere soon, any creative entrepreneur must become familiar with the laws surrounding it.
Here are 5 things about the legal side all creatives must know:
Why copyright doesn’t protect most AI-Generated content
You can’t copyright something just because you clicked “generate.”
Under U.S. law, only humans can be authors. If a work is created entirely by AI, with no meaningful creative input from a person, copyright law does not protect it. That means anyone can reuse or remix it, and you would have little legal ground to stop them.
Your creative input must appear in the final result if you want ownership.
Examples of what likely do not qualify for copyright protection:
- Letting ChatGPT or Midjourney create content from a prompt
- Using “generate image” and posting it without edits
- Publishing an unedited AI article under your name
- Releasing music made entirely from AI presets
Examples of what might qualify for copyright protection:
- Writing detailed prompts and curating the best results into a designed piece
- Editing an AI-generated image with original cropping, collage, or hand-drawn elements
- Use AI as a writing assistant, then rewrite the text in your style.
- Turning raw outputs into a cohesive book, zine, or animation with creative decisions and how you assemble everything at every step.
Also, some legal scholars believe that detailed, expressive prompts might qualify for copyright protection if they show sufficient originality and authorship. The Copyright Office hasn’t ruled on this directly, so for now, prompts should be treated as tools rather than protected works.
Why copyright law requires a human author
One of the key ideas behind copyright law is that it protects human creativity.
Under U.S. law, copyright protects “original works of authorship.” Courts and the U.S. Copyright Office interpret this to mean that the author must be a human being.
That rule becomes important when we start talking about AI.
If an AI system generates a piece of art, music, or writing entirely on its own, there may be no copyright protection at all. The reason is simple: a machine is not considered an author under copyright law.
But things get more complicated when a human uses AI as part of the creative process.
If a person contributes meaningful creative choices such as writing prompts, editing outputs, arranging elements, or combining AI material with original work, those human contributions may still be protected.
In other words, AI can be part of the creative process, but copyright protection still depends on human creativity.
Real cases showing how courts are treating AI works
The rule that copyright requires human authorship is not just theoretical.
Several recent cases show how courts and the Copyright Office are applying that rule to AI-generated work.
Thaler v. Perlmutter
One of the earliest AI copyright cases involved computer scientist Stephen Thaler.
Thaler attempted to register a copyright for an artwork created entirely by an AI system he built. He listed the AI, not himself, as the author. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, and the federal courts agreed. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the court held that copyright law requires human authorship and that a machine cannot qualify as an author.
If a work is created entirely by AI, there may be no copyright protection at all.
Zarya of the Dawn
Another widely discussed decision involved a graphic novel called Zarya of the Dawn.
Artist Kris Kashtanova used the AI tool Midjourney to generate some of the images that appeared in the comic. When the Copyright Office reviewed the registration, it granted copyright protection for the comic’s text and the selection and arrangement of the images, but refused to protect the AI-generated images themselves.
This decision introduced an important distinction.
AI-generated material may not be protected on its own, but the human creative decisions surrounding it still can be.
Jason Allen v. Perlmutter
Another dispute arose after artist Jason Allen used Midjourney to create an image titled Théâtre D’Opéra Spatial, which won first place in a digital art competition.
Allen attempted to register copyright in the work, but the Copyright Office denied the application because the image was generated primarily by AI. Allen challenged that decision in Jason Allen v. Perlmutter, arguing that his prompts and creative direction should qualify as authorship.
The case highlights one of the biggest unanswered questions in AI copyright law.
How much human involvement is enough to count as authorship?
Why These Cases Matter for Creators
These decisions point in the same direction.
AI can be part of the creative process, but copyright protection still depends on human creativity.
If a creator relies entirely on AI to generate the finished work, copyright protection may not exist. But when AI is used as a tool within a larger creative process, the human-created parts of the work may still qualify for protection.
And that line will likely continue to evolve as courts see more cases.
Registering copyright for works that include AI
Using AI in your creative process can also affect copyright registration.
If you apply to register a work with the U.S. Copyright Office and the work contains AI-generated material, you may need to disclose that fact in your application.
The Copyright Office has taken the position that copyright protects only human authorship. Because of that, applicants may need to identify which parts of a work were created by a person and which parts were generated by AI.
In some situations, the AI-generated material must be excluded from the copyright claim. The registration may only cover the portions of the work that reflect human creative input.
This creates an important practical point.
If you are using AI tools in your workflow, it helps to be clear about where your own creative contributions begin and end. Those human contributions are what copyright law is designed to protect.
How to protect your business when contractors use AI
When someone else creates work for your business, you must know how they made it.
If you’re hiring freelancers or contractors to do creative work, ask whether they use AI tools. If they are, the work they deliver might not qualify for copyright protection. It could even put you at legal risk if that content infringes on someone else’s rights.
We’ve been seeing this issue increase, so pay close attention.
Why this matters for your business:
- Copyright law may not protect work made entirely using AI.
- If your contractor uses AI and doesn’t tell you, you may not own what you paid for
- You could end up distributing infringing work without realizing it
What to include in your contracts:
- An explicit requirement that the contractor disclose any use of AI tools
- Language confirming that the work is original and created by a human
- A statement about who is responsible if AI-generated content causes legal issues.
These points belong in every contract involving creative work. If you want to use language already tested in the field, grab the Independent Contractor Agreement Kit. It includes everything you need to protect your business when working with freelancers.
AI prompts that might infringe copyright (and what to say instead)
AI doesn’t erase your legal responsibility. It might even create more of it.
If AI creates something that copies or mimics someone else’s protected work, you could be on the hook. Courts hear cases where artists, authors, and companies argue that AI models produce unauthorized knockoffs. You may be liable if you’re using or publishing that work, even if you didn’t mean to copy anyone.
And let’s be honest. The AI company won’t show up to defend you.
Examples of high-risk AI usage that could trigger legal trouble:
- Using prompts like “make a song in the style of Taylor Swift.”
- Asking for artwork that looks like it came from Studio Ghibli or a Marvel movie
- Generating copy that mimics a well-known author’s voice or plotlines
- Creating product designs based on a competitor’s style or branding
- Posting or selling AI-generated work that includes logos, celebrity likenesses, or protected characters
Examples of lower-risk uses:
- Using AI to brainstorm layout ideas, then designing the final version yourself
- Generating text to get past creative blocks, then rewriting it in your own words
- Pulling reference images from AI, then painting or illustrating your version
- Building original content around AI-assisted drafts that you reshape and expand
The more you steer the process, the safer you are. The more you imitate, the riskier it gets.
Why human connection is your greatest asset in the world of AI
AI can replicate your style, but it can’t replicate your story.
We’ve seen AI upend industries almost overnight, threatening creative livelihoods in ways that still feel surreal. Some artists have lost revenue, and others have watched their aesthetic show up in someone else’s AI output.
But the ones who are thriving?
They’re not just selling products. They’re building brands that feel deeply personal, human, and uncopyable.
People may enjoy AI content. But they build trust with creators who show up as themselves.
How real creatives are standing out in an AI-saturated world:
- Sharing the story behind the work, not just the work itself
- Showing process, personality, and imperfection
- Turning followers into insiders with behind-the-scenes content or newsletters
- Launching products or offers tied to their unique voice or values
- Selling experiences, not just finished output (like live sessions, collabs, or artist notes)
AI is getting better at copying. That means you need to get better at being you.
Understand that the law is rapidly evolving
The only constant in AI law right now is change.
From courtroom battles to proposed regulations, the legal landscape around AI is shifting month by month. Cases are testing new theories. Lawmakers are proposing new disclosure rules. Even the U.S. Copyright Office has updated its stance more than once in the past year. What you could get away with last fall might not hold up in court this summer.
You don’t have to memorize case law. But staying informed could save your business.
What’s changing fast in the legal world of AI:
- Courts are testing whether AI training qualifies as fair use (see NYT v. OpenAI, Thomson Reuters v. Ross)
- Proposed laws like the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act would require companies to share the content they’ve used to train models.
- The U.S. Copyright Office released a multi-part report with updated positions on ownership, infringement, and use cases.
- State-level laws (like Tennessee’s ELVIS Act) are starting to protect voice and likeness rights in the age of deepfakes.
As a creative entrepreneur, the best thing you can do is stay close to trusted resources that can explain this shifting legal terrain in plain language.
Need support navigating AI, copyright, and everything else that comes with building a creative business?
That’s precisely what we’re here for.
Inside the Creators’ Legal Program, you’ll get access to workshops, 1-on-1 calls, and real-time legal guidance explicitly designed for creators.
Whether you’re trying to understand how AI affects your rights, register a copyright, secure a trademark, or build better contracts, we’re here to help you protect your work and confidently move forward.
