What You Need to Know Before Publishing Anything Generated With GenAI

TLDR: The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report makes one point clear: AI-generated content is not automatically protected by copyright. Only the human contribution is protectable. For teams using GenAI to produce marketing copy, reports, images, learning modules or internal documents, this means the real risk isn’t legal theory. It’s simple. If the human input is weak, patchy or absent, you cannot claim ownership. This blog breaks down what the Office actually said, why it matters to everyday commercial work, and the exact steps to stay safe.

Source acknowledged: U.S. Copyright Office, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability”, January 2025.

 
What does the U.S. Copyright Office say about AI-generated content?

The report sits on a clear foundation:

1. Copyright in the U.S. requires human authorship.
   
2. No human contribution, no copyright protection.
   
3. Fully autonomous AI output cannot be registered.
   
4. If the model created the content with no meaningful human involvement, it is considered non-copyrightable material.
   
5. Hybrid work can be protected, but only the human parts.
   
6. If the human shaped, edited, selected, arranged or contributed expression, that portion can be protected.
   

Prompts alone rarely count as authorship. Think about that.

The Office is explicit: typing short prompts does not automatically qualify as “creative authorship”.

This is now the formal U.S. position. It will influence Australia, the UK and most Commonwealth systems because courts often interpret similar principles around originality and authorship.

What counts as “human authorship” when using GenAI?

The threshold is higher than most organisations assume.

The Office outlines several categories:

1. Assistive use is fine
If AI is a tool that helps you write or produce material you control and determine, your work remains protected.
Example: rewriting, cutting text, supporting research.

2. Prompts don’t give you authorship
Simple prompts (“write a blog”, “produce a photo of X”) are not enough. They show intent, not expression.

3. Human expressive inputs matter
If you supply your own photos, text, diagrams or structured material, and the AI uses them as inputs, the human content remains protected.

4. Selection, arrangement or modification qualifies
If you meaningfully edit the output, combine it with human-authored material, or make decisions about what stays or goes, that contribution is protectable.

The Office is clear about the test:
Copyright applies only where the expressive elements come from a human.

Why does any of this matter for teams using GenAI at work?

Because most organisations use AI the same way: they push prompts, accept the output, publish it, and assume it is “theirs”. That assumption fails under this framework.

Real consequences:

• You may not own the content you publish.
  
• Competitors could reuse parts of it.
  
• You cannot enforce exclusivity or originality clauses in contracts.
  
• Your agency or vendor may be delivering non-copyrightable material.
  

For teams who produce marketing, training materials, research summaries, service descriptions or product collateral, this affects the IP chain.

• Your board will care.
  
• Your procurement team will care.
  
• Your legal team will definitely care.

Where do copyright risks show up in day-to-day GenAI usage?

Three patterns appear across real organisations:

1. Publishing AI-generated images as if they’re owned assets
Stock-style visuals created purely by AI are not protected. If your brand team uses them in campaigns, you cannot claim exclusive rights.

2. Long-form documents created entirely by AI
Internal documents are lower risk. External publications, sales decks, or public-facing claims are not. If human expression is minimal, the copyrightable portion is minimal.

3. Vendor material produced by AI without disclosure
If your agency uses AI to generate most of a storyboard, landing page or article and delivers it as “original”, the IP position may be weaker than expected.

The common thread:
If you do not know the human contribution, you cannot know the copyright status.

What should organisations do to stay safe?

This is the part your ICP needs clearly.

1. Require disclosure
Ask vendors and internal teams to state when AI has been used.

2. Document human contribution
Record who shaped, selected, edited, or created the expressive elements.

3. Keep your source materials organised
The Office stresses the importance of identifying human-authored inputs.

4. Strengthen review processes
A quick pass is not enough. Someone must make meaningful editorial decisions.

5. Train staff on what “authorship” actually means
Non-technical teams need practical guidance, not legal theory.

This reduces operational risk and strengthens your IP chain before it reaches procurement, brand or legal.

 What fails if you ignore this?

• You publish work you cannot legally defend.
  
• You lose control of brand assets.
  
• You expose the organisation to contractual disputes.
  
• You weaken the value of proprietary materials.
  
• You pay for content you don’t actually own.
  
• This is the consequence test in action.

FAQs 

Q: If I heavily edit AI-generated text, is it copyrightable?
A: Yes, but only the parts you edited or added. The AI-generated base layer is not protected.

Q: Does this mean AI-generated corporate training or e-learning modules aren’t ours?
A: Not automatically. You need documented human authorship, revision, or arrangement.

Q: Can two companies use the same AI-generated image without infringement?
A: Yes. Pure AI images have no exclusive ownership.

Q: Does using AI violate copyright law?
A: No. The issue is not legality. It’s whether your output qualifies as protected work.

Q: Will this change in Australia?
A: Australian law has similar human authorship principles. Expect alignment, not divergence.

If you need a structured way to assess copyright, risk, and AI content workflows, the AI Business Case Workshop includes a full review of your content processes, authorship controls, and governance gaps so your teams can use GenAI safely and defensibly.