As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes a more integral part of creative processes, the question of copyright ownership for AI-generated works has moved from theoretical debates to pressing legal challenges. In the UK, the answer is clear but nuanced: AI itself cannot own copyright. However, the framework for protecting such works raises important considerations for creators, developers, and businesses alike.
The Legal Framework for Copyright in the UK
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), copyright is typically granted to the “author” of a work, which has traditionally been understood as a human being. However, the UK stands out in explicitly addressing computer-generated works. Section 9(3) of the CDPA states:
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Further, section 178 of the CDPA states: “computer-generated”, in relation to a work, means that the work is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work;”
These provisions ensure that works created without human authorship (such as those generated by AI systems) are not left without protection. Instead, the human who made the “arrangements necessary” for the creation process (such as programming the AI or inputting prompts) is deemed the copyright owner.
Why AI Cannot Own Copyright
Unlike corporations, which are legal entities capable of holding rights, AI lacks the legal personhood necessary to own copyright. This principle aligns with the broader legal consensus that copyright protects human creativity and expression, a standard AI cannot meet. AI operates by analyzing and synthesizing data—a process that, while impressive, lacks the originality and intentionality required by copyright law.
Who Owns AI-Generated Works?
Ownership of AI-generated works often hinges on interpreting who made the “arrangements necessary.” This can include:
- AI Programmers: The developers who design and train AI systems may argue they hold copyright, as their work lays the foundation for the outputs.
- End Users: Individuals or businesses who use AI tools, inputting specific prompts or criteria to produce a desired result, may also claim ownership.
- Collaborators: In cases of significant human-AI collaboration, joint ownership might be appropriate.
Clear agreements and contracts are essential to avoid disputes, particularly in commercial contexts.
Challenges and Ambiguities
- Vagueness in “Arrangements Necessary”: The CDPA does not specify what constitutes the “arrangements necessary,” leaving room for legal disputes. The courts have provided some assistance in this regard. For instance, In Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 24 (Ch), the court considered the application of Section 9(3) in the context of video games. The case involved a dispute over copyright infringement between a video game developer and a competitor. The court held that the programmer who created the software enabling the game’s operation was the person who undertook the necessary arrangements for the creation of the work, thus qualifying as the author under Section 9(3). However, overall, the limited case law to-date and ongoing debates suggest that while Section 9(3) provides a framework for attributing authorship to computer-generated works, its application to modern AI technologies remains uncertain.
- Training Data and Copyright Infringement: If AI systems are trained on copyrighted materials without permission, the resulting works may carry legal risks for their users and developers.
- International Divergences: While the UK’s approach grants some clarity, many jurisdictions, such as the U.S., deny copyright to works without human authorship altogether. These differences can complicate global business operations.
Implications for Businesses and Creators
The UK’s framework offers a degree of flexibility, allowing businesses to innovate with AI tools while maintaining copyright protection. However, it also demands vigilance:
- For Creators: Ensure contracts specify ownership rights for AI-generated content, particularly when using third-party AI tools.
- For Developers: Provide clear terms of service to define how outputs generated by users are handled.
The Path Forward
As AI continues to push the boundaries of creativity, the UK’s legal framework may require further refinement. Questions about originality, ownership, and infringement will only grow more complex as AI tools become more sophisticated. Policymakers, creators, and businesses must collaborate to ensure that copyright law fosters innovation while respecting the rights of human creators.
For now, while AI cannot own copyright in the UK, those who leverage its capabilities can secure protection—provided they navigate the legal landscape carefully. As always, consulting with legal professionals on specific cases is advisable.
