Short answer: Most jurisdictions do not fully recognise purely AI-generated works as “original” copyrightable subject-matter if no human authorial contribution meeting the jurisdiction’s originality standard can be identified. Copyright protection typically requires human authorship or sufficient human creative input.

Key points by jurisdiction and principle:

  • United States: Copyright requires human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office and courts have rejected registration for works produced solely by AI (e.g., “monkey selfie” principle extended; Copyright Office guidance 2019–2023). Human-directed, creative contributions may yield protection (e.g., editing, selection, prompting can help), but there is no clear rule granting copyright to outputs generated autonomously by AI. (See: U.S. Copyright Office policy statements; Thaler v. Comptroller? and recent agency guidance.)

  • European Union: Copyright generally requires a human author; EU law and member states emphasise “author” as a natural person. The CJEU has not granted autonomous AI authorship; protection may arise where human creative choices shape the work. The EU AI Act (proposal) does not confer authorship rights. (See: InfoSoc Directive and national implementations.)

  • United Kingdom: UK law presumes authorship by the person who made the “arrangements necessary for the creation” for computer-generated works (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.9(3)). This statutory provision can attribute authorship to a person even where human creativity is minimal, but its scope is contested and tends to require meaningful human involvement.

  • Other common-law countries: Canada, Australia, etc., generally require human authorship; courts have denied protection for non‑human-authored works but may protect works with significant human creative input.

Practical consequence:

  • Outputs produced with meaningful human creative input (original prompts, editing, selection, arrangement) have a stronger claim to copyright.
  • Purely autonomous AI outputs are often treated as public domain or ineligible for copyright unless specific national statutes (like UK s.9(3)) apply.
  • Policy and litigation are evolving; some governments are reviewing laws (e.g., US, UK, EU consultations).

Further reading:

  • U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium and guidance on AI-authored works.
  • UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.9(3).
  • European Commission and scholarly commentary on AI and copyright (e.g., ALAI reports).

If you want, I can list specific cases, agency statements, or a short table comparing several countries.

Short explanation: Most existing copyright systems center on human authorship and original expression. Courts and statutes in many jurisdictions require an author who exercises creative control; purely machine-generated outputs without meaningful human contribution are generally not treated as copyrightable. Where a human provides creative input, selection, arrangement, or direction significant enough to be considered original authorship, copyright can attach to the resulting work. National approaches vary and are evolving as courts and legislators confront new AI tools.

Examples:

  • United States — No copyright for purely machine output: The U.S. Copyright Office and courts have consistently denied registration or enforcement where there is no human authorship (e.g., the “Monkey Selfie” case’s spirit; more directly, guidance and refusals around AI-only works). United States Copyright Office policy and recent registration refusals state that works produced by a machine without human authorship are not registrable. (See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium and registration decisions.)
  • United Kingdom — Human author requirement: UK law requires a human author; one statutory provision recognizes works “computer-generated” but attributes authorship to the person who made the arrangements for the creation, allowing copyright if a person’s arrangements show sufficient skill, labor, or judgment. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 9(3).)
  • European Union — Ongoing reform and debate: EU directives and member states generally presuppose human authorship; the EU is discussing regulatory responses to AI but has not adopted a blanket new rule recognizing purely AI-created works as original. National implementations vary.
  • India — Recent case law: Indian courts have emphasized human intellectual effort; purely AI outputs have been rejected for copyright where no human creative input exists (see Indian decisions addressing computer-generated works and software). Statute contains a “computer-generated” provision but courts examine human input.
  • Practical hybrid examples:
    • Photo edited by a human who selects, composes, and significantly modifies an AI-generated image: Likely copyrightable in many jurisdictions because of human creative contribution.
    • Text output from a prompt with minimal editing: Often not considered original human authorship; registrability and enforcement are uncertain or denied.
    • Software code generated by an AI but integrated and substantially revised by a developer: Human-modified code is typically copyrightable for the portions reflecting human creativity.

References (select):

  • U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (registration guidance on works lacking human authorship).
  • Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), s. 9(3).
  • Recent court and administrative decisions addressing AI authorship (various national sources).

If you want, I can add citations to specific cases, government guidance documents, or draft rules being proposed in particular jurisdictions.

Back to Graph