Copyright in AI-Generated Works: What Law Firms Need to Know

## Human authorship remains essential

The U.S. Copyright Office’s 2023 guidance and subsequent registration materials maintain that copyright protects expression created by human authors. Material generated autonomously by an artificial-intelligence system is not copyrightable merely because a person supplied prompts, selected a tool, or claimed ownership of the output.

The inquiry is fact-specific. AI-assisted work may contain protectable human authorship when a person writes text, creates artwork, makes sufficiently creative selections or arrangements, or materially modifies generated material. Protection extends only to the human-authored expression, not to uncopyrightable machine-generated portions.

## Prompts and creative control

Current generative systems often interpret prompts unpredictably. Under the Copyright Office’s analysis, ordinary prompting may communicate an idea or desired result without giving the user control comparable to an author’s control over expressive details. Longer prompts do not automatically change that conclusion.

A human may nevertheless create protectable expression by:

- Writing or drawing substantial elements directly; - Creatively selecting and arranging generated material; - Revising output with original expressive changes; - Combining output with human-created components; or - Using AI as a tool that does not determine the expressive result.

Minor edits, purely mechanical corrections, or selection based only on preference may be insufficient. Firms should preserve drafts and process records showing what lawyers and staff actually contributed.

## Thaler and the authorship boundary

In *Thaler v. Perlmutter*, the federal district court upheld refusal to register an image that the applicant represented as autonomously created by an AI system. The decision reinforced the longstanding human-authorship requirement. Related litigation involving Stephen Thaler—including patent proceedings such as *Thaler v. Vidal*—concerns whether an AI system can be named as an inventor under patent law. Those patent rulings do not themselves decide copyright ownership, but they reflect courts’ attention to statutory terms tied to natural persons.

The lesson is not that every work involving AI is unprotected. It is that a claimant must identify human authorship honestly and with specificity.

## Registration and disclosure

Applicants should disclose more-than-de-minimis AI-generated content and describe the human contribution. When appropriate, an application should exclude AI-generated material from the claim. Previously filed registrations may require correction or supplementary action depending on the facts.

Failing to disclose known AI involvement can complicate registration and enforcement. Overclaiming may distract from protectable elements and invite challenges to validity.

## Risks for law firms

Law firms use generative tools for marketing copy, presentations, summaries, illustrations, and internal materials. Copyright is only one concern. Firms should also evaluate:

- Confidentiality and privilege when submitting client information; - Accuracy, hallucinated authorities, and supervision duties; - Vendor terms governing inputs, outputs, and model training; - Possible infringement in generated output; - Privacy and publicity rights; and - Whether clients expect exclusive, protectable deliverables.

A vendor’s promise that a user “owns” output cannot create federal copyright in material that lacks human authorship. Contractual rights and copyright rights are different.

## Adopt a documented workflow

Policies should identify approved tools, prohibit sensitive inputs absent authorization, require human verification, and record substantial creative revisions. Engagement agreements and vendor contracts should allocate responsibility without promising rights that the law may not recognize.

For valuable works, involve human creators from the outset. Treat AI as an assistive tool, retain drafts, conduct clearance review, and register only the protectable human contribution.

*By Sophia Patel, Esq. This article provides general information, not legal advice.*