Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Human Authorship Still Controls, and Documenting the Creation Process Is Critical; The National Law Review, May 13, 2026

 Lilian Doan Davis, Polsinelli PC,  The National Law Review; Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Human Authorship Still Controls, and Documenting the Creation Process Is Critical

"Practical Steps Companies Should Consider Now

Businesses using generative AI should consider a few immediate steps:

• Document human creative input. Preserve drafts, edits, source files and records showing who selected, arranged, revised or transformed AI outputs.
• Do not assume prompting establishes ownership. Prompt logs may help show process, but they are not a substitute for evidence of human-authored expression.
• Be precise in registration strategy. Applicants should disclose AI-generated material where required, identify the human author’s contribution and claim only the human-authored portions.
• Revisit contracts and internal policies. Vendor agreements, employee policies and content-development protocols should not assume that all AI-assisted output is fully protectable or exclusively owned in the same way as traditionally authored material.

Bottom Line

The law remains grounded in conventional copyright principles. The Copyright Office’s recent guidance and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Thaler point in the same direction: copyright protection still turns on human authorship, even when AI is part of the process.

For businesses, the practical implication is not simply that some AI-generated works may be unprotectable. It is that ownership, registration and enforcement may depend on whether the company can later show what a human author actually contributed. In that sense, AI governance is also evidence governance."

AI Makes Securing Copyright Protection for Software Code Tricky; Bloomberg Law, April 15, 2026

Michael Justus, Carlton Fields, Bloomberg Law; AI Makes Securing Copyright Protection for Software Code Tricky

[Kip Currier: I recommend this brief articleLinks to an external site. in Bloomberg Law; the authors do a great job identifying AI, IP, and human and AI-related coding issues right now, such as "vibe coding". They also provide practical strategies for endeavoring to secure copyright protections for code.]

"Copyright protection for software code is being sacrificed, knowingly or not, for the speed and efficiency of AI coding.

This rapid shift in the role of humans from writing code to managing artificial intelligence tools upends traditional copyright protection strategies. Original human-written code is generally copyrightable. But AI-generated code that lacks human authorship is ineligible for copyright protection under US law.

“Vibe coding”—where humans describe a desired software program in natural language and GenAI tools write the code—is pervasive. This isn’t limited to the tech industry. Employees across industries are vibe coding software solutions, which can be valuable to employers.

Developers estimate 42% of code is AI-generated or assisted and the number was expected to increase significantly, according to an October 2025 survey.

The lack of copyright protections is a big deal...

The key is bespoke curation into a creative whole from many options."

It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets; New York Times, February 4, 2018

David Leonhardt, New York Times; It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets

"The whole bizarre situation is a reminder of why trust matters so much to a well-functioning society. The best solution, of course, would be based not on some Transportation Department regulation but on simple trust. People who really needed service animals could then bring on them planes without having to carry documents.

Maybe a trust-based system will return at some point. But it won’t return automatically. When trust breaks down and small bits of dishonesty become normal, people need to make a conscious effort to restore basic decency."