Your AI-assisted campaign might not be protectable — and “we used AI to make it” doesn't answer who owns it.

PAIN

EU and US copyright law both protect only works with genuine human authorship, leaving purely AI-generated text, images, and music in a real legal grey zone.

In the US, Thaler v. Perlmutter tested this directly: a work generated autonomously by an AI system, with no human author, was refused copyright registration; the D.C. Circuit affirmed that in March 2025, and the Supreme Court declined a further appeal in March 2026, leaving the human-authorship requirement firmly in place.

The more common real-world case is messier: the Copyright Office's decision on the AI-assisted graphic novel “Zarya of the Dawn” protected the human-authored text and arrangement, but excluded the individual AI-generated images — the creator hadn't exercised the kind of control over them that authorship requires. A company shipping AI-assisted creative output often can't say with confidence which parts of it are actually its property.

OUR APPROACH

We treat this as a documentation and workflow problem, not a philosophical one: identifying and recording the specific human creative choices in a piece of AI-assisted work — selection, arrangement, editing, direction — that can support a copyright claim, and structuring the production process so those choices are traceable rather than invisible after the fact. Where a brand depends on exclusive rights to creative output, we build the workflow to preserve protectability before the work ships, not to reconstruct an argument for it afterwards.

TAKE

“AI-generated” isn't a legal category with settled rules yet — don't build your IP strategy as if it were.