Introduction

AI tools like GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and CodeWhisperer are now capable of writing significant portions of software. Developers across different industries are accelerating work by prompting AI to generate functions, algorithms, or even entire modules.

This convenience raises a fundamental legal question:

Who owns AI-generated code — and is it even copyrightable ?

Who Owns Code Generated by an AI ?

No Clear Default Owner Under Current Copyright Laws

Under most existing copyright frameworks (EU, US, France, etc.), only natural persons (humans) can be considered as “author” of a creative work.

Legal references:

• EU: Article 2 of the Directive 2009/24/EC that defines the “authors” of Computer Programs as natural persons (Humans).
  “Article 2 : Authorship of computer programs
  The author of a computer program shall be the natural person or group of natural persons who has created the program or, where the legislation of the Member State permits, the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation.“
• France: Article L113-1 of the “Code de la propriété intellectuelle” states that authorship must come from a natural person or a group of natural persons. This would not mean that legal entities can’t be authors of computer programs but there are particular cases not covered in this article but will be detailed in a dedicated one.
• US: The U.S. Copyright Office states that “the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” (Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Chapter 300 § 313.2 Works That Lack Human Authorship).

This would mean that if the code was generated without meaningful human involvement, it likely has no copyright.

Human Involvement Can Create a Claim

If the developer has determined sufficient expressive elements:

• Actively designed the prompt
• Modified, structured, or curated the generated code
• Integrated it with original work

Then the final product may qualify as copyrightable, and the developer or employer can claim ownership just like any other authored software.

Legal references:

• U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Report, Part 2: Copyrightability
  “Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.“

AI Tools Providers Often Disclaim Ownership

For example, GitHub Copilot’s terms (as of April 1, 2025) state:

“The code, functions, and other output returned to you by GitHub Copilot are called “Suggestions.” GitHub does not own Suggestions. You retain ownership of Your Code and you retain responsibility for Suggestions you include in Your Code. It is entirely your decision whether to use Suggestions generated by GitHub Copilot. If you use Suggestions, GitHub strongly recommends that you have reasonable policies and practices in place designed to prevent the use of a Suggestion in a way that may violate the rights of others.”

• GitHub does not claim copyright on Copilot output.
• But it also doesn’t guarantee that you have rights to it.

AI Act and What It Adds

The EU AI Act (2024) is the world’s first major AI regulation. And it doesn’t define authorship or IP ownership, but it imposes transparency obligations.

Key points :

• General-purpose AI models providers must provide sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training the general-purpose AI model including copyrighted data (AI Act, Retical 107).
• Deployers must inform users when content is AI-generated in certain contexts (AI Act, Article 50).

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your situation, consult a qualified attorney or legal advisor.