Who owns that AI generated content?

18 July 2025

Article by Michael Allin, image created by Michael Allin using artificial intelligence

Now, I know what you’re thinking… where can I buy this super stylish and fun toy?! Sorry to let you know, but this is an AI creation, and can’t be found in your local toy store. But before you rush off to have someone produce this before a patent is registered, perhaps this is an opportunity to consider the law on ownership of AI generated works.

The general starting point on ownership is section 11(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which states that the first owner of copyright is the author.

However, it is important to bear in mind section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which states that:

“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.”

The immediate question appears to be, who is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the work’s creation are undertaken? Is it the person who provides the input information to the AI, or is it the person who creates the AI in the first place?

The Supreme Court touched upon this issue in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in 2023 (albeit in the context of the Patents Act 1977), where the Court decided that a creator must be a natural person. Further, there was no basis for applying the doctrine of accession – which holds that the owner of a piece of property also owns anything produced by or from it; the reasoning was that an invention is not a tangible form of property whose ownership can be transferred to the owner of the machine that created it.

Whilst not clear, given the rapidly developing nature of AI, modern case law would appear to suggest that in the first instance, it would be the programmer of the AI who would be considered that person who made the arrangements. The Court considered this point in Nova Productions v Mazooma Games in 2006, where the Court suggested that a work produced as a result of running a computer program is owned by the person who wrote the program. The case also indicates that a person using an interface to generate content would not be the author because it involved no artistic input.

The Government issued a consultation in December 2024, seeking views on reform to the law on ownership of computer generated works. The Government stated its view that “as things stand, the framework does not meet the needs of UK’s creative industries or AI sectors.”

Luckily, where OpenAI is concerned, the terms and conditions settle the issue: as at the time of drafting, all rights are assigned by OpenAI to the user – so hands off that super stylish Michael Allin toy, that one is mine! But that is a fact sensitive example, rather than helping us with a general principle. We shall have to wait to see how the Courts and Parliament consider this further, which in a world of increasing AI usage is probably going to be inevitable.

Please note: this article does not constitute legal advice. The views contained herein are purely for discursive purposes.

< Back to Articles