You ask an AI tool to generate a blog post, a logo concept or a product image. Can you use it commercially? Is it yours? Could it get you into trouble? Online you’ll find confident claims pointing in every direction. The honest reality: some main lines are reasonably clear, many details are not. This article gives you the big picture from a European perspective — and is upfront about where the uncertainty sits.
First things first: this is general information, not legal advice. This area of law is very much in motion; for concrete decisions with real money or real risk behind them, consult a lawyer.
Main line 1: copyright protects human creations
Copyright is built around a human author. The core of European law is that a work is only protected if it is a person’s own intellectual creation — it has to contain free, creative choices made by a human. That starting point is widely shared; outside the EU too (in the US, for example), registration bodies and courts have refused protection for material generated entirely by a machine.
What does that mean in practice? Fully automatically generated output — you type a short prompt, the machine makes the image — most likely does not qualify for copyright protection. There is no human author who made the creative choices.
The grey zone: human and machine together
Things get more interesting, and more uncertain, with hybrid work. What if you write dozens of prompts, select outputs, combine them and rework them thoroughly yourself? How much human creativity is enough for protection, and what exactly is then protected — the whole, or only your edits? These debates are still in full swing and there is no crystallised European line yet. Rule of thumb: the greater your own creative contribution, the stronger your position — but don’t count on anything blindly.
Main line 2: no protection also means no exclusivity
Most people only ask “am I allowed to use this?”, but the mirror question matters just as much: can you stop others? If your AI-generated logo or brand style isn’t protected by copyright, a competitor may use something similar (or identical) without copyright giving you any way to act against it.
For a throwaway illustration on a blog post, that hardly matters. For a brand logo, a visual identity or a product your business leans on, it is a genuine consideration. (For logos, trademark law exists as a separate track — with its own requirements, and a conversation for a specialist.)
Main line 3: AI output can infringe other people’s work
This is the most underestimated risk in practice. AI models are trained on enormous amounts of existing material. Generated output can end up closely resembling existing protected work — an illustration style eerily close to one specific artist, a figure suspiciously similar to a well-known character, a passage of text that comes almost verbatim from somewhere.
The crucial point: “the AI made it” is not a defence. Whoever publishes or commercially uses infringing material can be held responsible for it — regardless of how it was made. And on the question of whether training AI models on protected work itself requires permission, lawsuits and policy debates are currently running in several countries. There too, the final word has not been spoken.
Main line 4: also check your AI tool’s terms
Separate from copyright, you have a contractual relationship with the provider of the AI tool. The terms of use often state what you may do with the output, whether commercial use is allowed and sometimes under which subscription. These terms differ per provider and change regularly. They cannot grant you a copyright that doesn’t legally exist, but ignoring them can still cause contractual problems. So read them — certainly for commercial use.
Practical guidance
- Low risk: AI content for internal use, drafts, brainstorms and throwaway material. Problems are rare here.
- Think for a moment: publicly visible content such as blog images and social media posts. Check that the output doesn’t conspicuously resemble existing work, and that the tool’s terms allow commercial use.
- Be careful: anything where you need exclusivity (logo, brand identity, core product) and anything deliberately generated in the style of a specific creator. Consider human (re)work and legal advice here.
- Don’t: present AI output as entirely your own work where the context demands honesty, or deliberately imitate existing works or characters for commercial use.
- Document your process. Keep prompts, intermediate versions and your own edits. If a dispute ever arises, you can show your creative contribution.
Transparency: sometimes required, often wise
The European AI Act contains transparency obligations around AI-generated content: providers of AI systems must work towards generated content being recognisable or markable as such, and for certain forms — deepfakes, for instance — it must be disclosed that content has been artificially generated or manipulated. Exactly how this works out in practice is still being developed. Legal duty aside: in contexts where people expect work to come from a human, being transparent about AI use is simply sensible and honest.
In short
Work generated entirely by AI is most likely not protected by copyright; for human work with AI assistance, it depends on your creative contribution — and the line hasn’t crystallised yet. No protection means no exclusivity. The biggest practical risk is AI output resembling existing protected work — and that remains your responsibility. And this whole field is moving: for important decisions, check the current state of play or ask a lawyer.
Want your team to get sharper on this? The AI literacy course covers responsible AI use at work, including trade-offs like these. Organisations that want to train several people can get a team licence via our page for employers, and the free quiz shows you in five minutes where you stand today.