Do you think you are the author of ‘your’ works created using AI? Copyright law takes a different view.

Is content generated by artificial intelligence protected by copyright?

Artificial intelligence can generate graphics, text or audiovisual material in a matter of seconds. However, the mere technical ability to produce an original-looking result does not in itself determine whether it is protected by copyright. The key factor is whether a creative and individual human contribution can be identified in the creation of the material in question.

Current legislation does not grant artificial intelligence the status of an author. This does not, however, mean that all material produced using AI is excluded from protection. The decisive factors are how the technology is used and the actual extent of the creative decisions made by a human being.

What constitutes a work under copyright law?

In accordance with Article 1(1) of the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 24, as amended): ‘The subject matter of copyright is any manifestation of creative activity of an individual character, fixed in any form, irrespective of its value, purpose or mode of expression (a work).’

For a specific result to be recognised as a work, it must satisfy all of the following basic criteria: it must be the result of creative activity; it must have an individual character; and it must be fixed in a manner that enables it to be perceived by persons other than the author.

Creativity does not, however, mean merely effort, labour or technical skill – there must be scope for independent creative decisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union takes a similar view, stating that the protected result should reflect the author’s personality and be an expression of their free and creative choices.

Can artificial intelligence be an author?

Under current legislation, only a human being can be an author, which follows not only from the definition of a work but also from the structure of moral rights.

In accordance with Article 16 of the Act, these rights protect the creator’s connection with the work, which is unlimited in time and cannot be waived or transferred. They include, in particular, the right to authorship and to sign the work with a name, a pseudonym or to make it available anonymously – this kind of personal connection can link a work exclusively to a natural person.

Furthermore, it is worth emphasising that AI lacks the legal personality required to independently acquire and exercise economic copyright. It cannot grant licences, transfer rights or seek protection in court. Consequently, artificial intelligence is not an author within the meaning of copyright law – it may, however, serve as a tool used by humans in the creative process.

Results generated autonomously by AI

The greatest doubts arise regarding material produced essentially automatically, with minimal user involvement. An example might be entering a simple command, such as ‘write an article on data protection’, and using the first result obtained without further intervention.

In such a case, the user specifies the general topic or objective, but has no real control over the form of expression, the composition, the selection of individual elements, or the final shape of the result. The specific content is generated by the system on the basis of the model’s operational mechanisms.

If, as a result, no individual creative contribution by a human can be identified, the material will, in principle, not constitute a work protected by copyright. The mere fact that the generated content is appealing or technically original does not substitute for human creative activity. In such a case, no moral or economic rights of authorship arise in respect of the result itself. A user does not become the author simply because they have activated the tool, paid for access to the service or were the first to publish the generated material.

AI as a tool in the human creative process

A distinction must be made from the above in situations where a person uses AI merely as one of the tools for realising their own concept. Copyright protection may arise if the user makes significant and independent creative decisions, for example: devises a detailed concept for the work; consciously shapes its composition and structure; or independently adds or designs a substantial part of the material.

In such a model, protection does not stem from the mere fact of using AI, but from the human creative contribution evident in the final result. Artificial intelligence can then be treated in a similar way to graphics software, a word processor or audio editing software.

However, not every edit to the generated material will be sufficient. Correcting typos, changing the file format, automatic colour correction or selecting one of several variants based on purely technical criteria may not reach the level of creative activity. The assessment always requires an analysis of the specific process by which the material was created and the extent of the human’s creative freedom.

Who holds the rights to material created with the aid of AI?

If the final result meets the criteria for a work due to human creative input, the author will be the person who actually made the creative decisions leading to its creation. If several people were involved in the process, a situation of co-authorship may arise, provided that the contribution of each of them was creative in nature and was combined into a single work.

Moral rights remain with the actual creator and cannot be transferred. Economic rights, on the other hand, may – subject to statutory requirements – be held by another party or transferred to them.

How should human creative input be documented?

In the event of a dispute, it may be important to demonstrate how the final material was created. For this reason, when using AI commercially, it is advisable to keep a record of the creative process, in particular: successive versions of the project, the history of prompts and the system’s responses, and source materials prepared by a human.

It is worth emphasising that documentation alone does not confer protection if the human contribution was not of a creative nature. However, it may make it easier to prove authorship and the extent of independent creative decisions.

Summary

The output of an AI system may be protected by copyright, but only to the extent that it reflects creative and individual human decisions.

Material generated autonomously, where the user’s role is limited to entering a simple command, does not, as a rule, meet the criteria for a work. In such cases, there is no author within the meaning of the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2025, item 24, as amended).

If, however, AI is a tool for realising a person’s own concept, and the final result reflects their free and creative choices, the result may be eligible for copyright protection. The assessment should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the entire creative process.

Authors:

Legal adviser Ewa Lejman

Trainee Legal Adviser Dorota Brzęk