One question decides it: what part of this work did you actually create? Material the AI generated on its own isn’t protected by U.S. copyright — but your creative edits, your selection and arrangement, and your own written or drawn contributions can be. And if you register, you have a duty to disclose the AI material and describe what you contributed.
| How the work was made | What to expect |
|---|---|
| Mostly generated from prompts | The generated material is probably not protected on its own. Your prompt may be protectable text — the output isn’t automatically. |
| Human creative edits on generated material | Your edits can be protected, separate from the underlying AI material. |
| Creative selection and arrangement | The arrangement as a whole can be protected, even though the individual AI pieces aren’t. |
| AI material inside a larger human work | The larger work can be registrable; the AI-generated pieces inside it are still excluded from protection. |
Work out what’s protectable in your project →
If you’re not sure how to fill in the application, the Office says you may simply state that the work contains AI-generated material — and it will contact you.
What’s Protectable in My Work? A Walkthrough
Answer the questions below for a plain-text breakdown of what in your project may be protectable, whether you need to disclose anything, and exactly what to write on the application.
Why Prompts Usually Aren’t Enough
A prompt alone generally doesn’t make you the legal author of what the AI produces, because you don’t control how the system turns your words into a finished image, passage, or track.
The Office’s own analogy: when an AI system receives solely a prompt and produces a complex work, the traditional elements of authorship are determined and executed by the technology, not the user. In the Office’s words, users “do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts.” Prompts, it says, “function more like instructions to a commissioned artist — they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented.”
Iterative prompting doesn’t close that gap by itself. Additional instructions “may give a user greater influence over the output,” the Office notes, but the technology still determines how to implement them each time.
A protectable prompt doesn’t make the output protectable. A creative prompt may itself qualify as copyrightable text — that’s a separate question from whether the image, passage, or track it produced is protected.
Three Ways Human Authorship Can Appear
There are three routes to protectable human authorship in AI-assisted work, and they can combine.
You take AI-generated material and modify it with enough of your own creative expression that the modified result meets the originality standard. Copyright then covers the modifications, not the untouched AI material underneath.
You select and arrange AI-generated pieces creatively enough that the work as a whole is original — the arrangement is protected even though each underlying piece isn’t.
You combine AI-generated material with substantial material you created yourself. The Office’s own precedent: a graphic novel combining human-authored text with AI-generated images was registrable as a work, but the individual AI images inside it were not protected. Disclose and exclude the AI-generated pieces when you register.
You typed a prompt (even a detailed, iterated one) and used what came back essentially as-is. The traditional elements of authorship were determined and executed by the AI system, not you, so the output on its own is probably not protected.
Ordinary editing tools don’t change any of this — editing an image in standard software leaves you the author. But AI-powered features inside those same tools are subject to the same human-authorship analysis as a standalone AI generator.
Where the Line Sits — and Why There’s No Percentage
There’s no fixed percentage of human editing that makes a work protectable. The Office has said explicitly that this is a fact-specific, case-by-case inquiry — not a formula.
What matters is whether a human made the expressive choices, not how many clicks it took. The same AI-powered retouch tool might leave one photo clearly human-authored and leave another, more AI-driven result in doubt, depending on how much the system itself decided versus how much you did.
The Disclosure Duty
If you register a work that contains AI-generated material, you have a duty to disclose it — and to describe what you actually contributed.
Applicants “have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content” and to give “a brief explanation of the human author’s contributions.” The threshold is content “more than de minimis“ — AI material above that level “should be explicitly excluded from the application.”
The application, field by field
-
Standard Application
Use this application type. The Single Application can’t be used for AI-assisted work, since it requires all content to be created by the same individual.
-
Author Created
Describe the human contribution here. The Office’s own sample wording:
Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [human-authored content] created by the author and [AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.
-
Limitation of the Claim → Material Excluded → Other
Disclaim the AI material here:
[description of content] generated by artificial intelligence.
-
Note to CO (optional)
Add a short plain-language description of how the work was made, if you want to give the examiner more context.
-
Do not
List an AI technology or its company as an author.
| Field | What goes in it | Sample wording |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Application | The application type to use — the Single Application can’t be used since it requires all content by one individual | — |
| Author Created | Describes the human contribution | “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [human-authored content] created by the author and [AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.” |
| Limitation of the Claim → Material Excluded → Other | Disclaims the AI material | “[description of content] generated by artificial intelligence.” |
| Note to CO | Optional added detail | A short plain description of how the work was made |
| New Material Added / Other (supplementary only) | Used when correcting an existing registration | Describes what’s newly disclosed |
If You’re Unsure How to Fill It In
You don’t have to get every field perfectly worded before you file. You may simply give a general statement that the work contains AI-generated material. The Office will contact you when reviewing the application — and in some cases will explain that nothing needs to be disclaimed at all.
Fixing a Pending Application
If you’ve already filed and realize you didn’t disclose AI material, contact the Copyright Office’s Public Information Office and report the omission. Staff will add a note for the examiner handling your application.
Fixing a Registration You Already Have
If the certificate has already issued, you correct the record with a supplementary registration (17 U.S.C. 408(d); Circular 8) rather than by reopening the original.
Complete three fields: describe the human contribution in Author Created, disclaim the AI material in Material Excluded/Other, and fill in New Material Added/Other. With sufficient human authorship on the record, the Office issues a new certificate carrying the disclaimer.
A supplementary registration doesn’t erase the original — it gets its own number and effective date, and both dates stay in the record so a court can decide which applies.
What Actually Happens If You Don’t Disclose
The honest version, stated the way the Office states it: this isn’t automatic cancellation, but it isn’t nothing either.
If you never correct an undisclosed registration, you “risk losing the benefits of the registration.” If the Office later learns essential information “has been omitted entirely from the application or is questionable,” it “may take steps to cancel the registration” — and where human and AI material are intermingled, it may instead add an annotation clarifying the scope of the claim, rather than cancel outright.
Separately, in an infringement lawsuit, a court may disregard a registration under 17 U.S.C. §411(b) if the applicant knowingly provided inaccurate information that would have caused the Office to refuse registration. Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 142 S. Ct. 941 (2022), requires actual awareness of the inaccuracy, or willful blindness to it — an honest mistake isn’t enough to trigger this.
In March 2025, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), reinforced the human authorship requirement, but it ruled on a work with no human author at all — it doesn’t speak to how much AI assistance is permissible in a work that does have one. Don’t read it as setting a cancellation rule for AI-assisted work.
| Scenario | What the Office may do | What a court may do |
|---|---|---|
| Pending application | Adds a note for the examiner once you report the omission | Not applicable yet |
| Registered, human and AI material intermingled | May add an annotation clarifying the claim’s scope | Not applicable unless litigation follows |
| Registered, essential information omitted or questionable | May take steps to cancel the registration | Not applicable unless litigation follows |
| Infringement suit under §411(b) | Not the Office’s decision | May disregard the registration if the applicant knowingly provided inaccurate information (actual knowledge or willful blindness, per Unicolors) |
Disclose properly and most creators are fine — this isn’t a reason to avoid registering AI-assisted work, just a reason to fill in the fields honestly.
Licence ≠ Copyright ≠ Trademark
These are three different legal tools, and mixing them up is where a lot of confusion starts. A tool’s commercial licence tells you what you’re allowed to do with its output — it doesn’t by itself create a copyright. Trademark is a separate system entirely, protecting source identifiers like brand names and logos, administered by the USPTO rather than the Copyright Office.
| Tool licence | Copyright | Trademark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it gives you | Permission to use the output under the provider’s terms | Exclusive rights over human-authored expression | The exclusive right to use a name, logo, or symbol to identify your goods or services |
| What it doesn’t give you | Does not create authorship or ownership of the underlying work | Does not cover AI-generated material on its own | Does not protect the artwork or image itself as a creative work |
| Who grants it | The AI tool’s provider, by contract | Arises automatically for human authorship; registration is handled by the U.S. Copyright Office | Registered federally through the USPTO, or held under common law through use |
If a logo is going to function as your brand name, the copyright questions above decide whether the image itself is protected — but the trademark question is a separate filing, with the USPTO, on its own timeline.
By Work Type
The same principles apply across media; here’s how they tend to play out in practice.
Logos
A logo generated entirely from a prompt and used as-is is unlikely to be protected by copyright on its own — but it can still potentially be trademarked, since trademark protects it as a source identifier regardless of how it was made. If you draw over or substantially redesign the AI output, your modifications may be separately protectable.
Book covers
A cover combining human-authored text or design elements with an AI-generated illustration can be registrable as a whole — similar to the Office’s graphic-novel precedent — while the individual AI-generated image inside it stays unprotected and should be disclaimed.
Product photos
A photo you took yourself and lightly retouched, even with AI-powered tools, generally keeps you as the author. A product image generated from a prompt rather than photographed is treated like any other AI-generated image — probably not protected unless you’ve creatively modified it.
Blog text
AI-drafted text you substantially rewrite in your own words and structure can carry your own copyright in the final version. Text that’s essentially the AI’s output, lightly touched up, is on weaker ground — there’s no fixed percentage that settles it, so lean toward disclosure when in doubt.
Music or audio
AI-generated audio combined with or layered under substantial human composition, performance, or production can follow the same “AI material inside a larger human work” path as other media. Fully AI-generated tracks used unchanged sit with the rest of prompt-only output.
Code
AI-generated code you review, restructure, and integrate with your own original code is treated like any other case-by-case mix of human and AI authorship — document what you wrote versus what the tool produced.
If Your Work Isn’t Protected, What Can You Still Do?
Unprotected doesn’t mean worthless. Material that isn’t covered by copyright can still be sold, used commercially, and built into a larger project.
- You can still use and sell AI-generated material — the absence of copyright doesn’t prohibit commercial use.
- If it functions as a brand name or logo, trademark may be the relevant protection instead, through the USPTO.
- Contracts (a client agreement, a licence, a work-for-hire clause) can govern who’s allowed to use or resell a piece, independent of copyright status.
- None of this substitutes for copyright in the parts that genuinely are human-authored — document and disclose those correctly so you don’t lose that protection by default.
Documentation File
Build this while you work, not after someone asks. It’s what lets you describe your contribution accurately, on the application and anywhere else it matters.
- Dated drafts and versions
- Layered source files
- Your edit history
- Notes on the creative decisions you made
- The human-created elements you added
- A plain description of what the AI produced versus what you changed
Copy blocks for the application
Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe your human-authored content] created by the author and [describe the AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.
[description of content] generated by artificial intelligence.
A short plain description of how the work was made — no fixed wording, just enough for the examiner to follow.
If you already registered
- Check what you originally disclosed
- Prepare a supplementary registration
- Complete Author Created, Material Excluded/Other, and New Material Added/Other
- Expect a new certificate with a disclaimer, alongside — not replacing — the original
Before you rely on copyright commercially
- Ask whether the valuable part is the AI output or your own expression
- For brands, look at trademark instead
- For anything commercially important or contested, get an IP attorney’s look before you rely on it
Never
- List an AI tool as author
- Assume a tool’s commercial licence equals copyright
- Invent a percentage of human editing — there isn’t one
Frequently Asked Questions
Can AI-generated work be copyrighted in the U.S.?
Material an AI system generates entirely on its own isn’t protected. Your own creative contribution to the project — edits, arrangement, or original elements you added — can be.
Do I own the images I make with AI?
You generally own whatever creative contribution you personally made. The underlying AI-generated material, by itself, isn’t owned by anyone under copyright law — it’s simply not protected.
Are AI-generated images in the public domain?
Unprotected isn’t the same legal category as “public domain,” but practically, material with no copyright owner can generally be used freely by anyone, similar to public-domain material — subject to a tool provider’s own usage terms.
Are prompts protected?
A sufficiently creative prompt may itself qualify as protectable text. That’s separate from whether the image, passage, or track the prompt produced is protected.
Does a copyrightable prompt protect the output?
No. A copyrightable prompt and a copyrightable output are two different questions — one doesn’t carry over to the other.
Does editing make it copyrightable?
Creative editing can make the edited result protectable. Light, mechanical touch-ups generally don’t meet the originality standard on their own.
How much editing is enough?
There’s no percentage test. The Office treats this as a case-by-case, fact-specific question about whether a human made the expressive choices.
Do I have to disclose AI use when registering?
Yes, when the AI material is more than a trivial (“de minimis”) part of the work. You have a duty to disclose it and briefly explain your own contribution.
Which application form do I use?
The Standard Application. The Single Application can’t be used for AI-assisted work, since it requires all content to be created by one individual.
What exactly do I write in the Author Created field?
The Office’s own sample wording: “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [human-authored content] created by the author and [AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.”
What goes under Material Excluded?
Under Limitation of the Claim → Material Excluded → Other, describe the AI-generated portion, for example: “[description of content] generated by artificial intelligence.”
What if I don’t know how to fill it in?
You can give a general statement that the work contains AI-generated material. The Office will follow up during review, and sometimes will tell you nothing further needs to be disclaimed.
What if my application is pending?
Contact the Copyright Office’s Public Information Office and report the omission; staff add a note for the examiner.
What if I already registered without disclosing?
File a supplementary registration, completing Author Created, Material Excluded/Other, and New Material Added/Other. The original registration isn’t erased — both the original and new dates stay in the record.
Can the Copyright Office cancel my registration?
It’s not automatic. If essential information was omitted or is questionable, the Office may take steps to cancel — or, where human and AI material are intermingled, it may instead annotate the record instead of cancelling.
Does a tool’s commercial licence mean I own the copyright?
No. A licence governs what you’re allowed to do with the output under the provider’s terms — it doesn’t by itself create or transfer a copyright.
Can I trademark an AI-generated logo?
Potentially, yes — trademark is a separate system from copyright, and generally cares about the mark functioning as a source identifier rather than how the artwork was produced. It won’t make the logo image itself copyrightable.
Can I still sell work that isn’t protected?
Yes. Lacking copyright protection doesn’t prohibit using or selling the work — it just means you can’t stop others from using the same unprotected material.
This is general information, not legal advice. It’s based on the U.S. Copyright Office’s policy statement (88 FR 16190, effective March 16, 2023) and its January 29, 2025 report, verified on October 13, 2026. Registrability is determined case by case; for anything commercially important, or for correcting a registration tied to a dispute, talk to an IP attorney.
Last updated:
Daniel Hayes is the founder and sole researcher at AdvoraHQ. He covers U.S. personal finance, insurance, and consumer law — working directly from IRS publications, federal and state statutes, court opinions, and SEC filings rather than secondary summaries. His focus is the gap between what readers think they know and what the source documents actually say. Daniel is not a licensed attorney, CPA, or financial advisor; his articles are educational and not personalized advice. Reach him at Daniel.Hayes@advorahq.com.
