I run a content marketing agency. We use Claude and GPT-4 to draft initial content, then our writers edit and expand it. Client just asked us to warrant that we own full copyright to all deliverables and can assign it to them.
Can I actually make that warranty? I've seen conflicting info about whether AI-generated content is copyrightable at all.
Short answer: it's complicated and the law is still developing.
The Copyright Office's current position (March 2023 guidance, reaffirmed in 2024): purely AI-generated content is not copyrightable because copyright requires human authorship. BUT — content where a human provides "sufficient creative control" over the output may be copyrightable as to the human contribution.
The key question is: how much are your writers actually changing the AI output?
Honestly? It varies. Sometimes the AI output is 80% of the final piece, sometimes it's more like 30%. We always edit for accuracy, add specific examples, restructure sections.
Following this closely. I freelance and use AI for first drafts. Clients have started asking me to sign warranties that content is "not AI-generated." I've been declining those contracts but losing work.
@ContentAgency_J — here's the practical framework I use with clients:
1. If AI generates the core structure/content and humans do light editing (grammar, formatting), the copyright claim is weak.
2. If humans use AI as a research/brainstorming tool but write the actual prose themselves, copyright is strong.
3. The gray zone is where humans significantly transform AI output. There's no bright-line rule yet.
For warranty purposes, I'd suggest something like: "Agency warrants that all deliverables include substantial human authorship and creative expression, and that Agency assigns all copyright interest it holds in the deliverables to Client."
Don't forget the ToS angle. Both OpenAI and Anthropic's terms assign you ownership of outputs (subject to the same legal questions about copyrightability). But you need to comply with their usage policies — no using outputs to train competing models, disclosure requirements in some contexts, etc.
If your contract with the client transfers "all rights" but you're bound by AI provider ToS restrictions, that creates a conflict.
Why would anyone take this risk? If I'm paying for content I want to know I actually own it. The whole point of hiring writers is to get copyrightable work product.
@RiskAverse_Bob — fair point, but practically speaking, what's the actual risk? Even if the content isn't copyrightable, the client can still use it. They just can't stop competitors from copying it. For most marketing content that's... fine?
The bigger risk is the warranty itself. If you warrant full copyright ownership and it turns out you don't have it, that's breach of contract. Client could demand refund, sue for damages if they relied on that warranty.
Better to be transparent: "Content is created using AI assistance with substantial human editing and creative input. Agency assigns all copyright interest it may hold."
I've been through two rounds of this with enterprise clients. What worked: being upfront about AI use, documenting the human contribution (tracked changes showing edits), and using the "assigns all interest it holds" language. No client has pushed back once I explained the legal landscape.
The ones who demand absolute "no AI" warranties are usually more worried about quality/authenticity than copyright anyway.
UPDATE: Had the conversation with the client. Explained the current legal uncertainty, showed them our editing process (before/after comparisons). They agreed to modified language: "Agency warrants substantial human authorship and assigns all copyright interest it holds."
Also adding an AI disclosure clause to our standard MSA going forward. Thanks everyone.
Jumping in late but this is incredibly relevant. Just dealt with a due diligence issue where the acquirer's counsel flagged AI-generated marketing content as a potential IP risk. They wanted representations that all content was human-authored.
We ended up carving out "marketing and promotional materials" from the IP rep and adding a disclosure schedule. Slowed down the deal but didn't kill it.
@StartupGC_Sarah — that's going to become more common. I'm already seeing M&A due diligence checklists that specifically ask about AI tool usage in content creation, code development, and design work.
Companies should be documenting their AI usage policies now — which tools, for what purposes, what human review process. That paper trail becomes valuable in transactions.
What about AI-generated images? I use Midjourney for client work (social media graphics, blog headers). Is the analysis the same as text?
My understanding is images are even more problematic since there's less "human authorship" in typing a prompt vs. editing text output.
@AIArtist_Mike — correct, images are arguably harder to claim copyright on. The Copyright Office has rejected several AI image registrations (the Zarya of the Dawn case is the famous one).
However, if you take AI output and significantly modify it in Photoshop — composite multiple generations, paint over sections, add original elements — the human-authored portions may be copyrightable. You'd register it as a derivative work or compilation.
For commercial client work, I'd recommend: (1) disclose AI use, (2) document your human modifications, (3) use "assigns all rights it holds" language rather than warranting full copyright.
One month update: The modified warranty language is working well. We've onboarded 4 new clients since then, all accepted the "substantial human authorship" language without pushback.
One thing that helped: we created a one-pager explaining the current legal landscape around AI content. Clients appreciate the transparency and it actually builds trust.
Biggest surprise: two clients said they prefer that we use AI because it means faster turnaround. They just want quality output and clear IP terms.
I've softened my position a bit after following this thread. The reality is AI-assisted content is everywhere now. The question isn't whether to use it but how to handle the IP implications properly.
For anyone still on the fence: the NYT v. OpenAI case and other ongoing litigation will eventually give us more clarity. Until then, disclosure + modified warranties seems like the safest approach.
Don't forget the EU AI Act implications for those with European clients. Starting in 2025, there are transparency requirements for AI-generated content in certain contexts.
If you're creating content that could be mistaken for human-created (deepfakes, synthetic media), there are disclosure obligations. Marketing content is generally lower risk but worth tracking as enforcement develops.
This thread is gold. I'm a developer who also does technical writing. Quick question: does anyone have template language for an AI disclosure clause in an MSA? I want to be proactive with new clients rather than dealing with this after the fact.
@JuniorDev_Contracts — here's a starting point:
"Provider may utilize artificial intelligence tools in the creation of Deliverables. Provider warrants that all Deliverables undergo substantial human review, editing, and creative direction. Provider assigns to Client all copyright interest, if any, that Provider holds in the Deliverables. Client acknowledges that portions of Deliverables created by AI tools may not be subject to copyright protection under current law."
Adjust based on your specific workflow and risk tolerance. The key elements: (1) disclosure of AI use, (2) human oversight warranty, (3) assignment of whatever rights exist, (4) client acknowledgment of the legal uncertainty.
Important update for everyone following this thread. The Copyright Office published its final report on AI and copyright in late 2025, and there are some significant clarifications worth noting.
The big headline: they've doubled down on the "human authorship" requirement but provided much more granular guidance on what qualifies. Specifically, the report distinguishes between three tiers:
1. Purely AI-generated: No copyright. Period. This includes output from a simple prompt with no meaningful human creative input.
2. AI-assisted with substantial human direction: Potentially copyrightable. The human must demonstrate "creative control over the expressive elements" - meaning you directed the structure, made substantive editorial choices, and the final work reflects your creative vision rather than the AI's default output.
3. Human-authored with AI tools: Fully copyrightable. This is where AI functions like spell-check or grammar assistance - the human is clearly the author.
For most content agencies, you're in category 2, which means your copyright claim depends on how well you can document your creative contributions. The "substantial human authorship" standard from earlier guidance is now more formally defined.
I've been following this thread since the beginning and wanted to share something practical. I actually tried registering a copyright for an AI-assisted work last month - a 15,000-word industry report where I used Claude for initial research synthesis and draft sections, then rewrote about 70% of the final text, added all original analysis, charts, and conclusions.
I disclosed the AI involvement on the registration application exactly as the new guidance recommends. Described my process: "Author used AI language model for initial research compilation and draft generation. Author substantially rewrote, restructured, and expanded all sections, contributing original analysis, proprietary data interpretation, and all conclusions."
Registration was accepted. Took about 4 months to process but no issues. The examiner didn't even follow up with questions. I think the key is being specific about YOUR contributions rather than vague about the AI's role.
For what it's worth, I think the "human authorship" debate sometimes misses the point. Most professional writers using AI aren't just hitting "generate" and publishing. The creative judgment - what to keep, what to cut, how to restructure, what original ideas to add - that's authorship.
Coming at this from a slightly different angle that I think deserves more discussion: the training data implications.
Everyone's focused on whether you can copyright the OUTPUT, but there's a looming issue with the INPUTS. The NYT v. OpenAI case is still working through the courts, and the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence decision from 2025 established that using copyrighted works to train AI can constitute infringement in certain circumstances.
Here's why this matters for content creators: if a court eventually rules that certain AI training was infringing, what happens to outputs generated by those models? Could your AI-assisted content face downstream liability claims? It's an open question but one worth thinking about.
The practical risk is probably low for most use cases, but if you're in a high-stakes context (publishing, journalism, academic work), it's worth tracking these cases. The Concord Music v. Anthropic and Getty v. Stability AI cases could also set important precedents in 2026.
My recommendation: if you're using AI-assisted content in a context where IP chain-of-title matters (M&A due diligence, licensing, publishing contracts), document which AI tools you used and when. If the legal landscape shifts, you'll want that paper trail.
Want to participate in this discussion?
Email owner@terms.law to request access