Can AI-Generated Works Be Protected by Copyright? Why the Answer Is Almost Always: No.

December 08, 2025

1. Introduction: The Common Misunderstanding About AI Copyright

A widespread misconception today is:

“If I generate an artwork using AI, I automatically own the copyright, right?”

Unfortunately, the legal answer is:

❌ Not always.

❌ In most cases, AI-generated works do not receive copyright protection.

❌ Many outputs have no copyright owner at all.

The reason is simple:

Copyright protects human creativity — AI is not human.

2. Fundamental Principle: Copyright Requires Human Authorship

Across nearly all legal systems, a copyrighted work must reflect:

✔ Originality

✔ Human creativity

✔ Personal expression

✔ Creative judgment

✔ Intellectual contribution

A work created entirely by a machine lacks:

intent,
creativity,
personality,
subjective decision-making,
authorship.

Thus, AI-only works are legally considered:

Authorless works — and therefore not copyright-protectable.

3. The U.S. Position: No Human Authorship = No Copyright

The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has repeatedly rejected applications for AI-generated works.

Most famous case:

Stephen Thaler — “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”

Created entirely by an AI system (“Creativity Machine”)
Application denied
U.S. courts confirmed the decision

USCO’s position is clear:

“Works created solely by AI are not eligible for copyright.”

Human creativity is mandatory.

4. European Union Position: Must Contain “Human Creative Choices”

European copyright law requires:

Originality that reflects the author’s personal, creative choices.

Because AI does not make creative choices:

❌ AI-only works are not considered original

❌ No copyright protection arises

❌ The user cannot claim authorship merely by entering a prompt

Only human-guided works can qualify.

5. UK, Australia, and Canada: Similar to the EU

Most common-law jurisdictions follow the same principle:

Copyright requires intellectual creation by a human mind
AI systems cannot be authors
Users do not become authors merely by operating a machine

In other words:
pressing “generate” does not make you a copyrighted creator.

6. Indonesia’s Position: Copyright Must Come From Human Creativity

Under Indonesia’s Copyright Law (UU No. 28/2014):

A “creator” must be a natural person
Copyright arises from intellectual ability and creativity
AI is not a legal subject
AI cannot have rights or obligations
AI-only creations cannot be copyrighted

Thus:

**AI-generated works without human creative involvement

→ have no copyright protection under Indonesian law.**

7. Is Giving a Prompt Considered Creativity?

Not necessarily.

A simple prompt like:

“Generate a fantasy-style painting.”

is not considered a creative contribution.

Prompts must involve substantial human judgment to qualify as authorship.

A user may be considered a creator only if the human:

✔ makes meaningful creative decisions

✔ shapes the final expression

✔ edits the AI output significantly

✔ contributes artistry beyond mere prompting

Therefore:

AI-assisted work → can be copyrighted

AI-generated work → cannot.

8. If AI Output Has No Copyright, Who Owns It?

Surprisingly:

→ No one.

→ It falls into a “copyright vacuum.”

This means:

Anyone may reuse the output
No exclusive rights exist
No legal ownership arises
The output functions like public-domain-like content

However, platforms like Midjourney or OpenAI may grant:

usage rights
commercial licenses

But these are contractual rights, not copyright.

9. Can AI Output Still Infringe Someone Else’s Copyright?

Absolutely.

Even if the AI output itself has no copyright, it may still:

❌ infringe copyrighted works in its training data

❌ replicate protected elements

❌ mimic artistic style (moral rights violation)

❌ mislead the public (“passing off”)

❌ damage an artist’s reputation

❌ expose the developer or user to legal liability