Can You Copyright Images Made by AI? Key Takeaways from the Case

The rapidly growing use of AI in creating images has raised important legal questions, particularly surrounding copyright. In recent years, courts have started to address the issue of whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted. 

Key cases, such as Thaler v. Perlmutter, have set the stage for these rulings, creating both clarity and uncertainty for creators, businesses, and developers. 

As AI tools like Segmind continue to revolutionize industries, understanding the implications of these legal decisions is crucial. 

This guide will explore the landmark court rulings, key legal principles, and the global landscape of AI-generated image copyright. 

We’ll also highlight practical takeaways for creators, businesses, and AI platform providers navigating this evolving area of law.

Key Takeaways: 

• Human authorship is crucial: AI-generated images can't be copyrighted without human involvement, as confirmed in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case.
• Global rules are evolving: Different countries are setting their own laws for AI-generated content, making it important to stay updated.
• Document your process: Always keep track of how AI tools are used in your creative work to avoid copyright issues.
• Use compliant AI tools: Platforms like Segmind offer easy-to-use, legal-friendly AI tools to help you create without legal risks.

The Landmark Thaler v. Perlmutter Decision

In a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Copyright Office's decision to deny copyright registration for an image titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," created solely by Dr. Stephen Thaler's AI system, the "Creativity Machine." 

The court affirmed that under the Copyright Act of 1976, works must be authored by a human to qualify for copyright protection.

The court confirmed that copyright law requires a human author for a work to be eligible for protection.

This ruling builds on earlier decisions and emphasizes that AI cannot be considered an author under current law. While AI tools like Segmind's Seedream 4.0 can assist in creative processes, the core of the work must involve significant human input to qualify for copyright.

Key Points from the Ruling:

• Human authorship is mandatory: Copyright eligibility requires that a work be created by a human, not an AI.
• AI tools as assistants: AI, such as the Segmind Cloud, can help in the creative process, but the human element is crucial for ownership.
• Legal precedent: This decision sets a clear standard for future cases involving AI-generated content.

For businesses, creators, and developers, this ruling means that while AI can enhance creativity, it’s important to ensure that the human creator is clearly involved to protect intellectual property rights.

Also Read: The Future of Creativity in the Age of AI 

Global Perspectives on AI-Generated Image Copyright

The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated images is evolving globally, with different countries taking distinct approaches to copyright issues. Here’s how key regions are handling AI-generated content:

1. China: Recognition of AI-Generated Works

In China, recent court rulings have shown a more progressive stance on AI-generated content.

Beijing Internet Court (November 2023):

• The court ruled that an AI-generated image could be protected under Chinese copyright law.
• The ruling emphasized that the image reflected the creator’s intellectual investment, making it eligible for copyright protection.
• This decision was a significant step in recognizing AI-generated works as legitimate under the law.
• Key takeaway: While AI played a large role in generating the image, the creator’s intellectual contribution was crucial for copyright eligibility. (source)

Changshu Municipal People’s Court (March 2025):

• This case upheld the earlier ruling, affirming that AI-generated works, when involving human intellectual input, can be covered by copyright under the PRC Copyright Law.
• Key takeaway: China is setting a precedent for AI-generated works, with a focus on human involvement in the creative process for copyright eligibility. (source)

2. European Union: The AI Act and Copyright Compliance

The European Union has made strides to regulate AI with its AI Act, which sets guidelines for AI tools and models. While the Act focuses on ensuring transparency and safety, it also impacts copyright considerations.

AI Act Overview:

• AI tools must comply with the EU’s legal framework, with requirements for transparency and protection against illegal content generation.
• Generative AI must disclose its use of copyrighted data during training and ensure compliance with copyright laws.
• Key takeaway: The EU aims to balance innovation and copyright protection by enforcing transparency and safe use of AI-generated content. (source)

Italy (2025):

• Italy became the first EU country to implement comprehensive AI regulations, aligning with the EU AI Act.
• This legislation focuses on ensuring AI remains human-centric and compliant with copyright laws, with specific guidelines on AI’s use in creative sectors.
• Key takeaway: Italy’s proactive stance serves as a model for AI regulation, emphasizing copyright compliance and AI’s responsible use. (source)

3. United Kingdom: Evolving Legal Framework

The UK has long provided copyright protection for computer-generated works, but the introduction of AI tools has created challenges in defining authorship.

Current Law:

• The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 covers computer-generated works, stating that the author is the person who made the necessary arrangements for the work’s creation.
• However, determining the true author of AI-generated content remains a complex issue.
• Key takeaway: In the UK, the question of authorship is not always straightforward when it comes to AI, and more legal clarity is needed.

Recent Developments:

• In January 2025, the UK government launched a consultation on AI and copyright reform.
• The proposal includes expanding the use of copyrighted materials for AI model training while allowing content owners to opt out.
• Key takeaway: The UK is exploring ways to balance the needs of AI developers with the rights of content creators. (source)

Also Read: DeepSeek R1: A New Contender in the AI Arena 

Recent Major Lawsuit Developments

The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated images has seen significant developments, with several high-profile lawsuits challenging the use of copyrighted works in training AI models.

1. Artists vs. Stability AI and Midjourney

In August 2024, a California federal judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by visual artists against Stability AI and Midjourney could proceed. 

The artists alleged that their copyrighted works were used without permission to train AI image generation systems. 

Judge William Orrick found that the artists presented a plausible argument that the companies violated their rights by illegally storing their works on their systems. 

While some claims were dismissed, the core copyright allegations and related trademark claims were allowed to continue.

2. Getty Images Lawsuit

In February 2023, Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI, accusing the company of misusing over 12 million Getty photos to train its Stable Diffusion AI image-generation system. 

Getty claimed that Stability scraped millions of images without a license, using them to train its model to generate more accurate depictions based on user prompts. 

The lawsuit also accused Stability of infringing Getty's trademarks, citing images generated by its AI system with Getty's watermark that Getty says could cause consumer confusion.

3. Disney and Universal vs. Midjourney

In June 2025, Walt Disney and Universal filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Midjourney, alleging that the company used copyrighted character images from franchises such as "Star Wars," "Frozen," and "Despicable Me" without permission. 

The studios claimed that Midjourney disregarded requests to stop the infringement and even released improved versions of its AI that continued the unauthorized use. 

The lawsuit alleges that Midjourney used copyrighted works to train its AI service and generate imitative content, profiting through subscriptions, with $300 million earned last year.

These legal actions underscore the growing concerns over the use of copyrighted materials in AI training and the need for clear guidelines and permissions.

Fair Use Doctrine and AI Training Data

The application of the Fair Use Doctrine in AI training has been a focal point in recent legal proceedings. 

Courts have examined whether using copyrighted materials to train AI models constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law.

Key Legal Precedents

• Issue: Whether training AI on copyrighted books without permission constitutes infringement.
• Ruling: The court ruled that using the books was "quintessentially transformative," thus qualifying as fair use.
• Caveat: The use of pirated copies of the books was not deemed fair use, leading to a separate trial over damages.
• Issue: Whether Meta's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models infringed on authors' rights.
• Ruling: The court found that the use was fair use, noting the transformative nature of the AI training.
• Consideration: The court emphasized the need for evidence of market harm, which was insufficient in this case.

Meta v. Kadrey (June 2025):

Anthropic v. Bartz (June 2025):

Implications for AI Developers

• Transformative Use: AI training that results in new, non-replicative outputs may qualify as fair use.
• Market Harm: Demonstrating that AI outputs do not harm the market for the original works is crucial.
• Source of Data: Using pirated or unlicensed materials can negate fair use claims and lead to legal consequences.

For businesses and creators utilizing AI tools, it's essential to ensure that training data is lawfully sourced and that AI outputs do not infringe on existing copyrights.

Also Read: 7 Best AI Video Generators Of 2025 (Compared And Reviewed) 

Practical Guidelines for Different User Types

Navigating the evolving landscape of AI-generated image copyrights requires tailored approaches for various stakeholders. 

Below are actionable guidelines for creators, businesses, and AI platform providers to ensure compliance and mitigate legal risks.

For Individual Creators and Artists

1. Document Your Creative Process: Maintain records of your prompts, edits, and any modifications made to AI-generated content. This documentation can support claims of human authorship, which is crucial for copyright eligibility.
2. Utilize Transparent AI Tools: Opt for AI platforms that disclose their training data sources and licensing agreements. This transparency helps ensure that the generated content does not infringe on existing copyrights.
3. Apply Watermarking and Attribution: Use tools like Adobe's Content Credentials to embed metadata into your creations, indicating authorship and usage rights. This practice can deter unauthorized use and enhance content protection.
4. Stay Informed About Legal Developments: Regularly review updates from copyright offices and legal bodies regarding AI-generated content. Understanding current rulings can guide your creative and commercial endeavors.

For Businesses and Marketers

1. Conduct Copyright Audits: Before deploying AI-generated content, assess its originality using plagiarism detection tools. This step helps identify potential infringements and ensures compliance.
2. Integrate AI Content with Human Creativity: Combine AI-generated elements with human-authored components to establish clear authorship. This hybrid approach can strengthen copyright claims and add unique value to your content.
3. Establish Clear Licensing Agreements: When licensing AI-generated content, ensure that contracts specify usage rights, attribution requirements, and indemnification clauses to protect against potential legal disputes.
4. Implement Content Monitoring Systems: Utilize platforms that offer likeness detection and content tracking to monitor the use of your AI-generated materials across various channels.

Conclusion

AI-generated images are reshaping creative work, but understanding copyright is crucial. The Thaler v. The Perlmutter case emphasized that human involvement is necessary for copyright protection. 

Countries like China, the EU, and the UK are developing their own regulations, and lawsuits against AI companies highlight the importance of compliance.

For creators and businesses using AI tools, it's essential to document your process, ensure licensed data use, and follow best practices. Segmind Cloud and PixelFlow offer compliant, high-quality AI tools that help you stay on top of legal requirements.

Stay ahead and create with confidence. Explore Segmind today for tools that ensure compliance and streamline your AI workflows.

FAQs

1. Can AI-generated images be copyrighted?

No, works created entirely by AI without meaningful human input cannot be copyrighted under current U.S. law and most international regimes.

2. Do I own AI images I generate from platforms like Midjourney or DALL-E?

You have non-exclusive usage rights per platform terms, but do not have full copyright protection or exclusive ownership. Some platforms grant broader licenses, but that's not the same as legal copyright.

3. Will humans retain copyright if they substantially edit or enhance an AI image?

Yes, if significant creative input is added—such as compositing, illustration, or retouching—the result may qualify for human copyright.

4. Is it safe to use AI-generated images commercially?

Risks remain. If the AI output resembles an existing copyrighted work or incorporates trademarks, users could face infringement claims. Always check platform indemnification and training data policies.

5. Can AI-generated images be used for trademarks or logos?

Authorities warn against this; such images may not meet originality or ownership requirements for registration.

6. Who is responsible if an AI-generated image infringes on someone's rights?

The end user is usually liable, not the platform or algorithm provider.

7. Is there a legal difference internationally?

Most countries require human authorship, but China recently recognized AI-image copyright when substantial human creativity guides the process.

8. Are these laws likely to change soon?

New rulings and policy reports emerge regularly, but human input remains the key legal standard for now.