Why AI Copyright Is Failing: 3 Reasons You're Doing It Wrong
It cannot be protected. It cannot be sold as an exclusive asset. It is public domain the moment it hits the screen.
I see founders building entire brands on Midjourney exports. I see writers "authoring" books with Claude. They think they are building equity. They are actually building a house on a sinkhole.
The US Copyright Office isn't confused. You are.
1. The "Prompting is Art" Delusion
I hear this every day. "I spent six hours refining the prompt."
The law does not care.
Copyright requires "Human Authorship." In the eyes of the court, a prompt is an instruction, not a creative act. If I tell a world-class painter to "paint a sad clown in the style of Picasso," I do not own that painting. The painter does.
With AI, the "painter" is a machine. Machines cannot hold copyright. Therefore, the work belongs to no one.
I watched the Zarya of the Dawn case closely. The author tried to copyright an AI-generated graphic novel. She won the copyright for the text. She won the copyright for the layout. She lost everything on the images.
If you are just "dialing in" a prompt, you are a director, not a creator. Directors don't own the film. The studio does. But in this case, there is no studio. There is just an empty chair.
2. You Are Ignoring the "Human Spark" Requirement
I talk to creators who think "editing" means adding a filter in Photoshop.
It doesn’t.
I tell my clients to work backward. Start with a hand-drawn sketch. Scan it. Then, manually paint over it.
Now you have a paper trail. You have "The Human Spark."
The current trend is "One-Click Excellence." It feels good. It’s fast. It’s also a legal dead end. If the process is effortless, the protection is non-existent.
I’ve seen $100,000 marketing campaigns get scraped and reused by competitors within 24 hours. When the original brand tried to send a Cease and Desist, they were met with silence. They couldn't prove they owned the source.
If you didn't sweat over the details, you don't own the details.
3. The Commoditization of "Style"
If I can replicate your entire visual brand by typing your name into a "Style" parameter, you have zero market value.
In a world where style is a software toggle, copyright becomes the only thing that matters.
People are focusing on the output. They should be focusing on the input data.
The law protects specific expressions, not general ideas. "Cyberpunk girl" is an idea. A specific, hand-tweaked, manually modified character with a unique backstory and non-algorithmic flaws is an expression.
Most people are too lazy to do the second part.
The Insight: The Death of the "Generalist" Creator
Here is my prediction: We are heading toward a "Proof of Origin" economy.
Soon, "AI-Generated" will be the default. It will be the "flour" of the creative world. Cheap. Plentiful. Boring.
The real value will shift to two extremes:
- The Raw Human: Work that is certified 100% "Machine Free." High-end luxury.
I see a future where the "Prompt Engineer" is replaced by the "Legal Auditor."
We are going to see a massive "Copyright Purge." Companies will realize their logos, mascots, and assets are not protected. They will panic. They will scramble to hire people who know how to draw with their actual hands.
The "Easy Button" was a trap. It gave you speed but took your ownership.
Ownership is the only thing that scales. If you don't own your IP, you don't have a business. You have a hobby that someone else can steal with a right-click.
What happens to your business when your "original" content becomes public domain tomorrow?