AI Changed How We Create. Has the Law Caught Up?
As I begin my first semester of college and start exploring my interest in law, I never expected to be thinking about one of the most debated topics in technology today: when someone uses AI to create something, who actually owns the result?
For many students in my generation, using AI tools such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, and GitHub Copilot feels natural. These tools help us brainstorm ideas, create content, and design images. As AI becomes part of everyday life, however, it is raising important legal questions that existing intellectual property laws may not be fully prepared to answer.
For decades, ownership in the workplace has been relatively straightforward. Under the Work Made for Hire rule, creative work produced by an employee within the scope of their job is generally owned by the employer. But the rise of generative AI has complicated that framework.
Recent guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office and court decisions, including Thaler v. Perlmutter, have reinforced an important principle of copyright law: human authorship is required for copyright protection. In other words, content generated entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection under current U.S. law.
This creates an interesting challenge for businesses. If employees use AI to generate marketing materials, software code, written content, or visual designs, the level of human involvement may determine whether copyright protection applies. The less human creativity involved, the more difficult it may be to claim traditional intellectual property rights.
The issue becomes even more complicated when outside contractors or agencies are involved. Many service agreements state that all intellectual property created during a project will be transferred to the client. However, if certain AI-generated materials are not legally copyrightable in the first place, there may be limits on what rights can actually be transferred.
Get Ishneet Kaur’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As students preparing to enter internships and professional careers, we are likely to encounter these questions sooner rather than later. The way businesses address this gap between AI innovation and intellectual property law could influence how ideas are created, protected, and commercialized in the future.
One possible solution is for organizations to establish clear processes that demonstrate meaningful human involvement in creative work. Documenting how content is edited, organized, refined, and ultimately shaped by people may help strengthen claims to intellectual property protection.
At the same time, companies may increasingly rely on other forms of protection, such as trade secrets, confidentiality agreements, and internal governance policies. As AI continues to evolve, these strategies could become just as important as traditional copyright protection.
What seems clear is that AI governance is becoming more than a legal compliance issue. It is increasingly a business strategy issue, a technology issue, and a workforce issue all at once. As someone planning to study law, I find it fascinating to watch how legal frameworks adapt to technologies that are advancing faster than the rules that govern them.
How is your organization approaching the balance between human creativity and AI-generated work?
Sources & References
- U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence & Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Copyrightability of AI Outputs.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter.
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials.
