The widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate text, imagery, music, designs, and software has introduced complex challenges to traditional intellectual property frameworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Historically, copyright law in England and Wales has focused entirely on human creators. Today, generative AI produces highly sophisticated work with minimal human oversight, disrupting foundational legal assumptions regarding authorship, originality, and ownership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For modern creators and organisations, several critical questions arise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In England, the primary legal framework is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A central element of this legislation is Section 9(3)<\/a>, which dictates that for computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, the author is defined as the person who made the arrangements necessary for the work’s creation. Section 178 <\/a>defines a computer-generated work as one created in circumstances where there is no human author. Consequently, UK law has historically accommodated copyright protection for works lacking direct human authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, pinpointing who exactly made the “necessary arrangements” is complex as potential authors could include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, entering a prompt does not automatically guarantee copyright ownership. Furthermore, under Section 12(7)<\/a>, computer-generated works receive a shorter protection period than human-authored ones, expiring 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were created<\/p>\n\n\n\n A distinct legal line separates content completely generated by AI from content created by a human using AI as an assistive tool. The strength of a copyright claim depends entirely on the extent of human creative contribution. The below are some examples of how the strength of a copyright claim may vary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simply instructing an AI tool does not automatically secure copyright ownership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI outputs are not inherently exempt from copyright restrictions. Under Section 16<\/a> of the CDPA, copyright owners hold exclusive rights over how their works are copied or communicated to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If an AI output replicates a substantial part of a protected work without authorisation, and no legal exception applies, it may constitute copyright infringement. The courts distinguish between copying a specific, protected creative expression versus simply drawing inspiration from a general concept, idea, or artistic style.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Establishing that copyright exists in a work does not automatically resolve who owns it. While Section 11<\/a> of the CDPA establishes the author as the first owner of a copyright, notable statutory exceptions exist. For instance, works created by employees during the standard course of their duties belong to the employer by default, unless a contract states otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond statutory law, organisations must scrutinise the terms of service of the AI platforms they employ. These contracts typically dictate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, holding a contractual right to use AI-generated content does not guarantee that the content qualifies for copyright protection under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Il UK Government\u2019s March 2026 report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence<\/a> signalled potential shifts in policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, these proposals are not yet law. As of November 2026, Section 9(3) <\/a>remains fully active and unrepealed, meaning the existing statutory framework still governs disputes. The Government has also highlighted the ongoing need to address transparency, licensing, and the use of copyrighted data to train AI models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To safeguard intellectual property and mitigate the risk of infringement, businesses utilising generative AI should implement the following safeguards such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping how creative material is produced and commercialised. While Section 9(3)<\/a> of the CDPA provides a unique UK pathway to protect certain computer-generated works, establishing authorship remains highly complex when human input is minimal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anticipated legal reforms may soon alter this landscape, particularly for entirely automated content. For organisations and individuals alike, the core takeaway is clear: utilising AI to create content does not automatically grant intellectual property ownership, nor does it insulate an organisation from third-party infringement claims. AI-generated content must be managed as a distinct compliance risk through robust contracts, clear ownership trails, and strict infringement checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you or your business requires any assistance navigating issues surrounding the ownership of intellectual property rights over content created by AI, please contact Litigation Partner, Jonathan Chan at j.chan@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> \/ 020 7034 3426.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":10902,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[81],"class_list":["post-10884","insight","type-insight","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-corporate","tag-litigation-team-dj"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n
Human Involvement and Originality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Can AI-Generated Content Infringe Copyright?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ownership of AI-Generated Content<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Proposed Government Reforms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Practical Recommendations for Businesses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Conclusione<\/h2>\n\n\n\n