AI-Assisted Creativity and Copyright Protection: Where US Law Draws the Line Between Human and Machine Authorship

AI and Copyright Law: Can AI-Assisted Works Be Copyrighted?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly capable of creative tasks such as singing, drawing, and writing—sometimes outperforming human creators. This surge in AI-generated content is testing the limits of copyright law in the US and worldwide, raising important legal questions about authorship and protection.

Human Authorship and Copyright Eligibility

The US Copyright Act requires that a work be an “original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” Crucially, courts have emphasized that copyright protection demands human authorship. In March 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in Thaler v. Perlmutter that works created entirely by AI cannot be copyrighted because current law insists on a human author. However, the court left open the question of AI-assisted works—those combining human and AI contributions.

Key Questions Raised by AI-Assisted Works

• Do AI-assisted works qualify for copyright protection?
• What level of human involvement is necessary for protection?
• What are best practices when registering such works?

These questions are no longer theoretical. The US Copyright Office regularly reviews applications for AI-generated content, and federal courts are hearing cases that address these issues.

Case Studies: AI and Copyright Disputes

Théâtre D’opéra Spatial

Jason Allen created this artwork using Midjourney AI, providing hundreds of prompts and post-processing with Adobe Photoshop and AI upscaling tools. His copyright registration application was denied because the Copyright Office found insufficient human authorship. Allen’s requests for reconsideration were also denied, with the Board emphasizing that AI-generated content must be explicitly disclaimed if it is more than minimal. Allen subsequently filed a federal lawsuit.

Zarya of the Dawn

This graphic novel combined human-written text with AI-generated images. The original copyright registration did not disclose AI involvement and was later canceled by the Copyright Office. The Office ruled the text and the compilation of text and images were copyrightable, but the AI-generated images alone were not. The creator was required to disclaim the AI-generated content explicitly to maintain copyright protection for the human-authored parts.

Copyright Office Guidance

In March 2023 and January 2025, the Copyright Office issued guidance clarifying its stance on AI-generated works. It maintains that:

• Human authorship remains essential for copyright eligibility.
• AI can be an assisting tool but cannot replace human creativity.
• Applicants must disclose and disclaim AI-generated content beyond a minimal amount.

Registrations have been granted for works that incorporate AI-generated material, provided there is sufficient human authorship.

Practical Takeaways for Legal Professionals and Creators

1. Understand the Role of AI Tools

Knowing how an AI tool operates is critical. Does it assist or replace human creativity? The Copyright Office evaluates whether the human author “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship or if the machine did. Mere use of AI prompts often isn’t enough to establish authorship.

2. Maintain Detailed Records of the Creative Process

Because copyright eligibility depends on the extent of human contribution, accurate documentation of how the work was created is essential. Track all human inputs, edits, and controls over the AI output.

3. Intent and Beliefs Don’t Determine Copyright

The human creator’s subjective belief about their contribution is irrelevant. What matters is the objective level of creative control and authorship exerted during the process.

4. Disclose and Disclaim AI Contributions

If a work contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated content, the copyright application must disclose this fact and describe the human contribution. AI-generated parts should be explicitly excluded from the claim. Failure to do so can lead to denial or cancellation of registration.

5. No Bright-Line Rules Yet

There is no fixed threshold for how much human control is sufficient. Each case depends on the specific AI tool and the nature of the human interaction with it.

6. Current Law Applies, But Changes May Come

For now, the Copyright Office relies on existing law to evaluate AI-assisted works. However, as AI technology evolves, legal standards and policies may adapt. The Office has committed to ongoing guidance and updates to assist creators and legal professionals.

Conclusion

AI-assisted creations challenge traditional copyright frameworks, but human authorship remains the cornerstone of protection. Legal professionals advising clients who use AI should emphasize thorough documentation, clear disclosures, and understanding the role of AI in the creative process.

For those interested in further exploring AI’s impact on creative and legal workflows, resources such as Complete AI Training offer courses that cover AI tools, copyright considerations, and practical skills.