Who owns AI-generated works? On copyright ownership, the answer in Spain, the rest of the EU and the United States starts from the same rule: only a human being can be an author. Content produced by an AI system with no meaningful human creative input is generally not protected, while works where a person shapes the expression with AI as a tool can be. For companies producing text, images, code or music with AI, the practical question is therefore how to prove the human contribution, in several countries at once.
Key takeaways
- Spanish law defines the author as the natural person who creates the work (Article 5 of the Intellectual Property Act); Mexico and the Andean Community use the same rule.
- The US Copyright Office concluded in January 2025 that prompts alone are not enough; human selection, arrangement or modification of the output can be.
- The US Supreme Court declined on 2 March 2026 to review Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving the human authorship requirement in place.
- Mexico’s copyright reform of 14 May 2026 now mentions AI expressly, but still defines the author as a natural person.
- The decisive evidence is a record of human creative choices, kept from the start of each project.
Can AI-generated works be protected by copyright?
Copyright protects original expression by an author. No jurisdiction in the corridor or in the US currently treats an AI system as an author, so the analysis always turns to the people involved: did someone make free, creative choices that are visible in the final work? If yes, those human elements are protected. If the person only typed an instruction and accepted what came out, there may be nothing to protect, or protection may cover only the human parts, such as text written around an AI image or the way several outputs are combined.
This has commercial consequences. Unprotected content can be copied by competitors, cannot be exclusively licensed with confidence and adds little value in a due diligence. Ownership clauses in contracts cannot transfer a right that never arose.
Spain and the EU: the author is a natural person
Under Article 5 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act (TRLPI), “the author is the natural person who creates” a literary, artistic or scientific work; legal entities benefit only in cases the Act expressly provides. Article 10 protects “original creations”, and for software Article 96(2) requires that the program be “the author’s own intellectual creation”, the originality standard used across EU copyright law.
Two consequences follow. First, a company cannot be the original author of AI output simply because it paid for the tool; it acquires rights through the people who create. Second, where staff create works, Article 51 presumes, absent a written agreement, an exclusive transfer of exploitation rights limited to the employer’s usual business, while for software Article 97(4) gives the employer the rights to programs created in the course of employment. Neither rule turns machine output into a protected work: they only allocate rights that exist.
United States: prompts alone are not enough
The US Copyright Office’s Part 2 report on copyrightability (29 January 2025) concluded that AI outputs can be protected only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. That includes human-authored material perceptible in the output and creative arrangements or modifications of it, “but not the mere provision of prompts”. Using AI as an assisting tool does not bar protection.
Registration is where this bites. The Office’s registration guidance (March 2023) requires applicants to disclose AI-generated content that is more than de minimis, exclude it from the claim and describe the human contribution. Registrations that omitted this should be corrected through a supplementary registration, or risk losing their benefits.
The courts have backed this position. In Thaler v. Perlmutter the D.C. Circuit upheld in 2025 the refusal to register an image listing an AI system as sole author, and, as Mayer Brown reported (11 March 2026), the Supreme Court denied review on 2 March 2026. Other cases, such as Allen v. Perlmutter, on an image refined through hundreds of prompts, remain pending, so the exact threshold of human contribution is still open.
Latin America: the same principle, with new AI references in Mexico
Mexico’s Federal Copyright Law states in Article 12 that the author is “the natural person who has created a literary and artistic work”. The reform published on 14 May 2026 added express references to AI: Article 102 now protects computer programs, “including those of artificial intelligence”, like literary works, and Article 87 extends protection of performers’ image and voice to results generated by AI systems. The definition of author did not change.
In the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), Article 3 of Decision 351 defines the author as the natural person who carries out the intellectual creation.
| Jurisdiction | Who can be an author | Purely AI-generated output | What to keep on file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain (TRLPI) | Natural person (Art. 5) | No author, so in principle no copyright | Evidence of original human choices; employment and commissioning contracts |
| United States | Human author (Copyright Office; Thaler) | Not registrable | Description of human contribution; AI material excluded in the application |
| Mexico (LFDA) | Natural person (Art. 12) | No author under Art. 12 | Records of human authorship; consents for voice and image |
| Andean Community | Natural person (Decision 351, Art. 3) | No author under Art. 3 | Records of human authorship; national registration where useful |
What this means for your business
The same piece of content may be used in Madrid, Mexico City and New York. A single documentation routine, designed once, works for all three:
- Classify your AI use: assistance on a human work, human editing of AI drafts, or AI output used as is. Reserve the last category for content you do not need to own exclusively.
- Record the creative trail: briefs, drafts, prompts, iterations, selections and edits, with dates and names. Keep version history.
- Identify the human authors and make sure employment, freelance and agency contracts assign their rights in writing.
- Read the AI tool’s terms: who owns outputs, what the provider may reuse and what warranties it gives.
- Register where it pays: in the US, file with a correct disclosure; in Spain, a registration or a dated deposit helps as evidence of authorship and date.
- Protect what copyright cannot: a logo created with AI can still be registered as a trademark or design if it meets those requirements.
Our AI-generated works and digital assets team can set up that routine and review your contracts, and our copyright and software registration service handles filings in each market.
Where companies get AI authorship wrong
- Assuming the licence from the AI provider creates copyright. Terms of use can allocate whatever rights exist; they cannot create authorship where there is none.
- Failing to disclose AI content in a US application. A registration with an inaccurate claim can be cancelled or disregarded in court.
- Keeping no records. Months later, nobody can show which parts were human and which were generated.
- Relying on default employment rules. In Spain, Article 51 covers only the employer’s usual business; freelancers and agencies need express written assignments.
- Ignoring third-party rights in the output: AI content that reproduces someone else’s work, voice or image creates liability even if you own nothing in it. Our IP disputes team handles these claims.
Frequently asked questions
Who owns the copyright in AI-generated content in Spain?
Spanish law recognises only natural persons as authors (Article 5 TRLPI), so content generated entirely by AI has, in principle, no author and no copyright. Where a person makes original creative choices, that person is the author of those elements, and the company acquires the rights through employment or assignment contracts.
Can I register an AI-assisted work with the US Copyright Office?
Yes, for the human-authored parts. The application must disclose AI-generated material that is more than de minimis, exclude it from the claim and describe what the human author contributed. According to the Copyright Office’s 2025 report, prompts alone do not amount to authorship, while human selection, arrangement or modification can.
Does Mexico’s 2026 reform protect AI-generated works?
No. The reform published on 14 May 2026 mentions AI expressly: it protects AI computer programs like literary works and extends performers’ rights over image and voice to AI-generated results. Article 12 still defines the author as a natural person, so AI output needs human authorship to be protected.
Can IP Global Guard protect our AI-assisted content in several countries?
Yes. We design the documentation routine, review contracts and AI tool terms, and coordinate registrations and trademark or design filings. In Spain and before EUIPO and WIPO we act directly where our professionals are entitled and otherwise through qualified representatives; in Latin America and Africa we coordinate local correspondents, and in the US qualified local counsel.
How IP Global Guard can help you own what you create with AI
AI changes how content is produced, not who can own it. The companies that keep their rights are the ones that can show, market by market, where the human creativity lies. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, works across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa with one strategy and one billing relationship, and the group’s AI Act practice can cover the regulatory side.
Tell us what you create with AI, which tools you use and in which countries you sell. We will review your ownership position and propose a documentation and registration plan from a single point of contact. Contact our AI and copyright team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on its publication date.
Sources
- BOE, Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996), Articles 5, 10, 51, 96 and 97 (consolidated text)
- US Copyright Office, Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report released (29 January 2025)
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
- US Copyright Office, Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-Generated Material (16 March 2023)
- Mayer Brown, Supreme Court Denies Cert in AI Authorship Case (11 March 2026)
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, Federal Copyright Law, consolidated text (last reform 14 May 2026)
- Andean Community, Decision 351 on copyright and related rights (1993), via OAS SICE
