Skip to content
Primores AI wiki

Can AI-Generated Video Be Copyrighted? (US Rules, 2026)

Can AI-Generated Video Be Copyrighted?

TL;DR: In the US, output made from prompts alone is not copyrightable. The Copyright Office’s January 2025 report says protection needs a human author: a human-authored work that stays perceptible in the output, or a human’s creative arrangement or modification of it, and “not the mere provision of prompts”. The Supreme Court left the human-authorship rule standing when it denied cert in Thaler v. Perlmutter on 2 March 2026, and the lower court’s ruling does not bar works made “with the assistance of” AI.

Primores’ content production builds product visuals and promo videos from a brand’s existing product photos and footage: content production.

⚠️ US law only. Not legal advice. The Copyright Office report was read in full on its news page (2026-11-10). The cert denial and the D.C. Circuit holding come from a law-firm alert. EU and UK positions on copyright in AI output were not researched for this page.

The rule in one table

What the human didCopyrightable in the US?Basis
Wrote prompts onlyNoCopyright Office: “not the mere provision of prompts”
Fed in their own work (photos, footage, drawings) that stays perceptible in the outputThe human-authored parts, yesCopyright Office: “where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output”
Selected, arranged or modified the output creatively (editing, compositing, sequencing)The human contribution, yesCopyright Office: “creative arrangements or modifications of the output”
Disclaimed any human creative inputNoThaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Circuit, Mar 2025; cert denied 2 Mar 2026)

The Copyright Office’s test is “sufficient expressive elements” determined by a human. It concluded that “the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.”

What Thaler v. Perlmutter settled, and what it left open

Stephen Thaler sought to register an image he said his AI system made on its own, with no human creative input. The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires a human author, reasoning from provisions that presuppose one (terms measured by the author’s life, signatures, joint-authorship intent). It added that the rule does not bar works “made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence”. The only limit is that the author must be human.

Because Thaler disclaimed any human input, the court did not decide how much human involvement is enough. The Supreme Court denied cert on 2 March 2026, so the human-authorship requirement stands and the “how much” question goes back to the Copyright Office’s case-by-case test.

What it means for brands and agencies

Our read, from the two sources above:

  • Prompt-only assets may be free for anyone to copy. A competitor reusing a purely generated frame has little to fear from copyright, though trademark and other claims may still apply.
  • Brand-owned input strengthens the position. Video built from a brand’s own photos and footage, then edited and arranged by people, carries human-authored material the report says can be protected. How much protection a given asset gets is still case by case.
  • Keep a record of the human steps. Source files, edit timelines and compositing decisions are the evidence of “creative arrangements or modifications” if ownership is ever disputed.
  • Contracts need AI and IP clauses. In a widely reported WFA survey, 80% of multinational brand owners said they were concerned about how their agencies use generative AI (date and sample not checked against the WFA original). Agency and white-label contracts should say where AI is used, who owns what, and what the warranty covers when parts of the output may not be protectable.

FAQ

Can AI-generated images or video be copyrighted?

Not when they come from prompts alone. The parts a human authored, either their own work visible in the output or their creative arrangement and modification of it, can be.

Who owns AI-generated ads?

Ownership follows copyright, and copyright needs a human author. The human-authored parts belong to whoever owns that authorship under the contract. Purely prompt-generated parts may not be owned by anyone under US copyright, so the contract between brand and agency matters more than usual.

Is AI video built from a brand’s own footage protectable?

The brand’s footage stays protected where it remains perceptible in the output, and creative editing and arrangement can be protected too, per the Copyright Office. The AI-generated filler between them is the weak part.

Did the Supreme Court rule on AI authorship?

It declined to hear the case. Denying cert on 2 March 2026 left the D.C. Circuit’s human-authorship ruling in place without a Supreme Court opinion.

Do prompts count as authorship?

No. The Copyright Office excludes “the mere provision of prompts”.

Do not cite

ClaimWhy not
”The Supreme Court ruled AI art can’t be copyrighted”It denied cert; there is no Supreme Court opinion on the merits
”Anything made with AI can’t be copyrighted”The D.C. Circuit says works made “with the assistance of” AI are not barred; the Copyright Office protects perceptible human authorship and creative arrangement
”Detailed prompts make output copyrightable”The Copyright Office excludes “the mere provision of prompts”

Key Takeaways

  • US copyright needs a human author; prompts alone don’t qualify.
  • Human work visible in the output, and creative arrangement or modification of it, can be protected.
  • Thaler v. Perlmutter stands after the 2 March 2026 cert denial; AI-assisted work is not barred.
  • Our read: build from brand-owned footage, document the human edit, and write AI use and IP ownership into the contract.

Sources

By Andrej Ruckij