On July 17th 2024 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a landmark ruling that could alter the way we think about copyright for AI‑generated images. The court held that while AI can be a tool, the output is still subject to copyright laws if a human “significant creative input” is present.
Artists and developers are now scrambling to clarify what counts as a “significant creative input.” A quick survey of 312 creators (see our blog post) indicates that 67 % believe that merely tweaking an AI model’s seed or prompt is insufficient, while 28 % argue it’s enough.
Meanwhile, the European Union is drafting its own directive that could grant “AI‑generated works” a new category of protection. If passed, it would create a dual‑layer system where the AI’s training data might still be subject to existing copyright, but the final image could be “de‑copyrighted” if the human contribution is minimal.
What does this mean for you? If you’re using GPT‑4 or DALL‑E to create art for commercial use, you may need to add a creative step—such as selecting or editing the output—to satisfy the “significant contribution” test. Artists who wish to remain fully protected should also consider publishing their AI‑generated works under a license that clarifies ownership, such as Creative Commons Attribution.