Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Who Owns AI-Generated Content and How Are the UK and EU Laws Changing?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way businesses and individuals create content. From generating marketing materials and artwork to producing music, software and written articles, AI tools are becoming increasingly integrated into everyday commercial activities.

However, as AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated, important legal questions are emerging. Who owns the copyright in content created using AI? Can businesses claim exclusive rights over AI-generated materials? What happens when AI systems are trained using existing copyrighted works without the permission of their owners?

These questions are particularly relevant as both the United Kingdom and European Union consider how copyright law should respond to the rapid development of generative AI.

In this article, Lawdit Solicitors explores the current legal position, the challenges surrounding copyright ownership and infringement, and the reforms that could significantly change the legal landscape for creators, businesses and AI developers.

1. Can AI-generated content be protected by copyright?

Traditionally, copyright law has been built around the concept of human creativity.

In the UK, copyright protection arises automatically where a qualifying original work is created. This can include literary works, artwork, music, photographs, software and other creative materials.

However, AI presents a challenge because the content may be generated with little or no direct human creative involvement.

For example, a business might enter a short instruction into an AI platform requesting a company logo, advertisement or article. Within seconds, the AI system produces a finished piece of content.

The difficulty is determining whether the resulting work qualifies for copyright protection and, if so, who should be recognised as its author.

The current position in the UK

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) contains a provision specifically addressing computer-generated works.

Under section 9(3), where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is computer-generated, the author is deemed to be the person who undertook the arrangements necessary for its creation.

This is an unusual provision because it potentially allows copyright protection to exist even where there is no human author in the traditional sense.

However, applying this provision to modern generative AI is far from straightforward.

For example, the person responsible for making the necessary arrangements could potentially be:

• The developer responsible for creating the AI system.
• The individual entering instructions or prompts into the AI platform.
• The business commissioning or organising the creation of the content.

The correct answer will depend on the circumstances, and the application of section 9(3) to modern AI systems remains legally uncertain.

The UK government has acknowledged these difficulties and is considering whether the existing provisions remain appropriate.

2. Who owns the copyright in AI-generated work?

Ownership is one of the most commercially significant issues arising from the use of AI.

Businesses increasingly rely on AI to create logos, website content, product descriptions, promotional materials and even software. Many assume that because they requested or paid for the content, they automatically own the copyright.

This assumption can be dangerous.

There are several factors that may affect ownership.

Human involvement: Where an individual uses AI as a tool but exercises meaningful creative control over the final work, copyright protection may arise in the elements reflecting that individual’s original creative contribution.

For example, a graphic designer who uses AI to generate preliminary concepts but then substantially develops and modifies the final design may be in a stronger position to claim copyright than someone who simply accepts the first image generated from a basic prompt.

Employment relationships: Where copyright arises in work created by an employee during the course of their employment, the employer will generally be the first owner, subject to any agreement to the contrary. However, this does not resolve the initial question of whether the AI-generated material attracts copyright protection.

Contractual arrangements: The terms and conditions of an AI platform may grant users certain contractual rights over generated outputs. Nevertheless, contractual permission to use content is not necessarily the same as owning copyright in that content.

Third-party rights: Even where a business is permitted to use AI-generated material, it may still face infringement allegations if the output reproduces protected elements of another person’s work.

For businesses commissioning AI-generated content, it is therefore important to distinguish between the right to use material and the ability to prevent competitors from copying it.

3. Can AI companies use copyrighted works to train their systems?

One of the most controversial aspects of generative AI concerns the materials used to train AI models.

AI systems are often trained using enormous quantities of information, including books, photographs, artwork, music, websites and other publicly accessible materials.

Much of this information may be protected by copyright.

The fact that a work is publicly available online does not necessarily mean that it can be freely copied or used for commercial AI training.

Under UK copyright law, reproducing a substantial part of a protected work without permission may amount to copyright infringement unless a relevant exception or defence applies.

The UK currently has a limited text and data mining exception under section 29A CDPA, which is directed towards non-commercial research and subject to statutory conditions. It does not provide a general permission for commercial AI developers to train their systems using copyrighted material.

This has created significant tension between technology companies seeking access to large training datasets and copyright owners seeking control over their creative works.

The dispute raises an important commercial question: should AI developers be required to obtain licences and pay copyright owners before using their work to train AI models?

For photographers, musicians, writers, publishers and other creative professionals, the answer could have a substantial effect on their ability to generate income from their intellectual property.

4. Proposed UK copyright reforms: What is changing?

The UK government has been reviewing the relationship between copyright law and artificial intelligence.

Its consultation, launched in December 2024, considered a number of possible approaches, including introducing a broader text and data mining exception for AI training.

One particularly controversial proposal would have permitted AI developers to use copyrighted works for training where they had lawful access, unless the copyright owner expressly reserved their rights.

This became known as the opt-out model.

Under such an approach, copyright owners would potentially need to take proactive steps to prevent their works from being used for AI training.

The proposal attracted significant criticism from representatives of the creative industries, who argued that it would shift the burden of protecting copyright onto individual creators and businesses.

The government’s revised position in 2026

In its March 2026 report on copyright and artificial intelligence, the government confirmed that a broad copyright exception with an opt-out mechanism was no longer its preferred approach.

Instead, the government indicated that further evidence would be gathered before deciding whether legislative intervention was appropriate.

The areas under consideration include:

• Whether existing copyright laws adequately protect creators whose works are used for AI training.
• How licensing arrangements between copyright owners and AI developers could operate.
• Whether AI developers should provide greater transparency about the materials used to train their systems.
• Whether the existing rules on ownership of computer-generated works should be clarified or removed.
• How copyright law should apply to AI models developed overseas but made available in the UK.

Importantly, these are matters under consideration rather than reforms that have already taken effect.

Could copyright protection for AI-generated works be removed?

One of the more significant proposals concerns section 9(3) CDPA.

The government has considered removing the specific copyright protection currently available for computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works where there is no human author.

If this change were introduced, purely AI-generated material could potentially fall outside the relevant copyright protections.

However, works created with AI assistance could still qualify for copyright where sufficient original human creativity is involved.

This distinction could become particularly important for businesses that rely on AI to create commercially valuable materials.

At present, the government has not implemented the proposed removal, and the existing statutory provisions remain in force.

5. How is the European Union approaching AI and copyright?

The European Union has adopted a somewhat different approach, combining existing copyright legislation with new obligations under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.

The EU AI Act introduces regulatory requirements for certain AI developers, including provisions specifically addressing copyright compliance and transparency.

Under Article 53, providers of general-purpose AI models are required to establish policies designed to comply with EU copyright law and publish sufficiently detailed summaries of the content used to train their models.

These requirements began applying to relevant new models from 2 August 2025, with transitional arrangements for certain models already on the market before that date, which must comply by 2 August 2027.

Greater transparency over training materials

One of the difficulties faced by copyright owners is establishing whether their work has been used to train an AI system.

The EU’s approach seeks to improve transparency by requiring providers of general-purpose AI models to publish information about their training content.

Although this does not necessarily require the disclosure of every individual work used, it represents a significant development in the regulation of AI.

The EU framework also requires relevant AI providers to respect reservations of rights made by copyright owners under the EU’s text and data mining rules.

For creators, this could provide greater visibility and support the enforcement of existing rights.

Does the EU recognise copyright in AI-generated content?

The EU’s approach to copyright ownership also differs from that of the UK.

Under established EU copyright principles, protection generally requires a work to represent the author’s own intellectual creation, reflecting free and creative choices.

Consequently, content generated entirely by AI, without sufficient human creative contribution, is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection under the ordinary EU framework.

However, AI-assisted works may still attract protection where an identifiable human author has exercised sufficient creative control.

In October 2026, the European Parliamentary Research Service highlighted the continuing debate surrounding AI-generated outputs, including whether further EU copyright measures may be necessary.

The European Commission has also undertaken consultations during 2026 examining potential changes to the copyright framework in response to generative AI.

6. What happens if AI-generated content infringes someone else’s copyright?

Another important concern is the potential for AI systems to reproduce protected material belonging to third parties.

For example, an AI image generator may produce artwork containing recognisable elements of an existing illustration, or an AI writing tool may generate text closely resembling protected written material.

In these circumstances, copyright infringement may arise where the output reproduces the whole or a substantial part of a protected work without permission and no applicable exception or defence applies.

It is important to understand that an AI-generated work does not become lawful simply because it was produced by a computer rather than copied manually.

Businesses using AI-generated materials commercially should therefore exercise particular caution.

Potential consequences of copyright infringement may include claims for damages, injunctions preventing further use of the material, and legal costs.

The position may become more complicated where multiple parties are involved, including the AI developer, the platform operator, the business using the system and the individual generating the content.

Determining responsibility will depend on the relevant acts of infringement, the applicable law and the contractual arrangements between those parties.

7. What should businesses and creators do now?

Although the law continues to develop, businesses should not wait for legislative reform before considering how AI affects their intellectual property rights.

Review the terms of AI platforms

Understand what rights the platform grants, whether commercial use is permitted and what warranties or indemnities are provided.

Keep records of human creative input

Retain drafts, design changes, editing histories and other evidence showing how employees or contractors contributed to the final work.

Review commercial agreements

Contracts with designers, marketing agencies, software developers and other suppliers should clearly address AI use, copyright ownership, licensing and responsibility for infringement.

Protect existing intellectual property

Creators should consider licensing arrangements, appropriate rights-reservation mechanisms and monitoring for potentially unauthorised use of their works.

Monitor legislative developments

Businesses operating in both the UK and EU should remain alert to differences between the two legal frameworks and forthcoming compliance requirements.

8. The future of AI and copyright

Artificial intelligence is likely to remain one of the most significant challenges facing copyright law in the coming years.

The fundamental difficulty is finding an appropriate balance between encouraging technological innovation and ensuring that individuals and businesses are fairly rewarded for their creative work.

The UK is continuing to assess potential changes to copyright ownership, AI training and licensing arrangements. Meanwhile, the EU has already introduced important transparency and copyright-compliance obligations for general-purpose AI providers and is considering whether further copyright reform is required.

For businesses, the uncertainty creates both opportunities and risks.

AI can substantially reduce the time and expense involved in producing creative content. However, businesses that rely heavily on AI-generated materials may discover that their ability to claim ownership, enforce copyright or prevent copying is more limited than anticipated.

Equally, creators whose works are used in AI training may need to consider new approaches to licensing and protecting their intellectual property.

The key message is that the use of AI does not remove the need to consider copyright law. In many cases, it makes careful intellectual property planning even more important.

How can Lawdit Solicitors help?

At Lawdit Solicitors, we understand the challenges that emerging technologies present for businesses, entrepreneurs and creative professionals.

Our intellectual property team can assist with copyright ownership disputes, infringement claims, intellectual property licensing, contractual arrangements and the protection of creative works.

Whether you are a business incorporating AI into your operations, a developer creating AI-powered products or a copyright owner concerned about the unauthorised use of your work, obtaining appropriate legal advice can help you understand and protect your rights.

For advice on artificial intelligence, copyright or intellectual property protection, contact Lawdit Solicitors.

This article provides general information about the law in England and Wales and relevant EU developments as at 28 October 2026. It does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area continues to develop, and specific advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.