AI generated content copyright in 2026 - where do we actually stand?

I create art using Midjourney and DALL-E, then heavily edit/composite in Photoshop. I also write using Claude, then rewrite and edit substantially. I want to sell prints and publish a book.

I've read conflicting things about whether I can copyright any of this. Some say AI content can never be copyrighted, others say if theres enough human input its fine. The Copyright Office seems to change their mind every few months.

Can someone who actually understands this explain where things stand in 2026? Specifically:

• Can I copyright AI-assisted artwork I've significantly edited?
• Can I copyright writing that started as AI draft but I rewrote 60-70%?
• Does it matter which AI tool I use?
• What documentation should I keep to protect myself?

Would really appreciate perspectives from IP lawyers or people who've actually dealt with this.

IP attorney here - this is genuinely one of the most unsettled areas of law right now. But here's where we stand in early 2026:

The core rule: Copyright requires human authorship. The Copyright Office has been consistent on this point. Pure AI output with no human creative input cannot be copyrighted.

Key decisions shaping current law:

• Zarya of the Dawn (2023): Comic book using Midjourney images. Copyright Office said individual AI-generated images = not copyrightable, but human selection/arrangement of images + human-written text = copyrightable as a compilation.
• Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023): Court upheld Copyright Office denial of registration for AI-generated art with no human input.
• Copyright Office Guidance (2024-2025): Clarified that works containing AI-generated material must disclose it and that copyright only covers human-authored portions.

For your specific questions:

1. Significantly edited AI art: Likely copyrightable on your human contributions (edits, compositing, selection). The base AI image likely isn't protected, but your creative additions are.
2. 60-70% rewritten text: Stronger case here. If you're substantially rewriting, selecting, arranging, and adding original content, you have a good argument for copyright on the final work.
3. Which AI tool: Doesn't matter for copyright law. The human authorship question is the same regardless of the tool.
4. Documentation: KEEP EVERYTHING. Before/after versions, edit history, drafts, your prompts, revision notes. Shows your creative process and human input.

Im going to push back a bit here. I think the Copyright Office is wrong and the law will eventually change.

The argument that AI art has "no human creativity" ignores the massive creative input that goes into prompting. Crafting a detailed prompt that produces a specific aesthetic vision IS creative expression. The human is making hundreds of creative decisions.

Compare it to photography - the camera does the actual image capture, but we don't say photographers have no copyright because they just "pushed a button." The creative choices happen before and around the mechanical/technical process.

I think we'll see court challenges and eventually Congressional action that recognizes prompt engineering as creative authorship. Just might take 5-10 years.

@DigitalArtDebate The photography comparison is interesting but the Copyright Office explicitly addressed it. Their position is that a photographer controls the entire creative process - lighting, composition, timing, angle, subject selection, etc. The camera is a tool that executes the photographer's specific vision.

With generative AI, the argument goes, the human provides input but doesn't control the specific output. You can't predict exactly what Midjourney will generate from a prompt. The AI is making creative choices the human didn't specify.

Now, I actually think theres a reasonable counter-argument: iterative prompting and selection IS a form of creative control. Generate 50 images, pick the one that matches your vision, refine with more prompts - that process involves creative judgment.

But that argument hasn't won yet. The law is what it is today, and creators need to operate within it while advocating for change.

Related reading: our explainer on AI content ownership covers this in more depth.

I can share my practical experience as someone who writes commercially with AI assistance.

I use Claude to generate first drafts, then I rewrite heavily - usually 70-80% of the final text is different from the AI output. My process:

1. Detailed outline (100% human)
2. AI generates rough draft based on outline
3. I rewrite, add original examples, restructure, add my voice
4. Final edit pass (100% human)

I consulted with an IP lawyer before publishing. Her advice:

• Keep all drafts showing the evolution from AI to final
• The more you transform and add, the stronger your copyright claim
• Don't claim copyright on portions that are still substantially AI-generated
• In copyright registration, disclose AI involvement honestly

I've published 2 books this way with no issues. Registered copyright on both. I was honest in the applications about AI assistance in drafting. No rejection from Copyright Office.

The key is substantial human transformation. Using AI as a starting point for something you then make your own is different from just publishing raw AI output.

This is incredibly helpful, thank you all. So to summarize what I'm taking away:

Current legal reality:

• Pure AI output = no copyright
• AI + substantial human editing/transformation = likely copyrightable on human portions
• Selection and arrangement of AI works = may be copyrightable as compilation
• Be honest with Copyright Office about AI involvement

Practical steps for me:

• Document my entire creative process with before/after versions
• Maximize human creative input - editing, compositing, adding original elements
• Keep records of prompts and iterations showing my creative direction
• When registering copyright, disclose AI use and claim copyright on human-contributed elements

Does this sound right? Anything I'm missing?

@AIArtist_Quinn That's a good summary. A few additional thoughts:

Even without copyright, you have protections:

• Contracts - you can still license and sell your work via contract. Copyright isn't required to do business.
• Trade secrets - your prompts and processes could be protectable as trade secrets
• Trademark - your brand, name, and distinctive style elements can be trademarked
• First-mover advantage - being first to market matters regardless of IP

Watch the legal landscape:

This area is evolving fast. There are multiple lawsuits working through courts, Congressional hearings happening, and Copyright Office is taking ongoing public comment. The rules in 2027 might look different than today.

One more practical tip: consider a consultation with an IP attorney before your book launch. They can review your specific situation and advise on the registration strategy. Usually a few hundred dollars for a consultation and could save headaches later.

Fantastic breakdown here. I've been selling prints for over a year now and this matches my understanding. The key insight for me was realizing that COPYRIGHT isn't everything - as @IPAttorney_NYC said, you can still license work via contract even if the copyright situation is murky.

I include language in my sales agreements that the buyer is purchasing a license to use the artwork, not the copyright itself. Covers my bases either way.

I have to respectfully disagree with some of the optimism here. I'm a traditional artist and the "AI art is just a tool like a camera" argument really doesnt sit right with me. A photographer makes dozens of intentional choices - framing, lighting, timing. With AI you type words and it makes choices FOR you.

That said, I appreciate the practical advice about documentation. Even if I disagree with AI art philosophically, the legal reality is what it is and artists using these tools should protect themselves.

@AIArtist_Quinn did you end up launching your book? Would love to hear how the copyright registration process went. I'm in a similar boat - manuscript uses Claude for initial drafts but I've rewritten probably 80% of it.

Planning to submit to Copyright Office next month and be fully transparent about the AI assistance. Fingers crossed.