Does AI-Generated Video Have Copyright? The US, the UK and the EU Give Three Different Answers

SinCoSphere EditorialUpdated 2026-09-128 min readLegal & compliance

Three jurisdictions, three answers. The United States requires a human author: prompts alone do not qualify, purely AI-generated output cannot be registered, and registrations must disclose AI-generated material. The United Kingdom has a separate category for output with no human author: since 1988 it has protected “computer-generated” literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for 50 years, naming as author the person who made the arrangements, and in March 2026 the government proposed removing that protection. The EU protects only an author's own intellectual creation and adds AI Act transparency duties from 2 August 2026. For a drama team the work is the same everywhere: keep evidence of human authorship, check each tool's output terms, clear real people's likenesses and voices.

The question is not whether AI video has copyright; it is whether your series does

None of the three jurisdictions gives “AI-generated video” a blanket answer. Each asks the same underlying question: what did a person do in this content?

The US Copyright Office looks for a “human author”. EU copyright law looks for the “author’s own intellectual creation”. The wording differs; the effect is the same. Where a human contributed expression, that contribution is protected. Where a human only pressed generate, that segment is not. UK law adds a separate category for output with no human author at all, the “computer-generated work”.

For an AI short drama this means copyright is almost certainly layered. The script, storyboard, dialogue and editorial arrangement are human-authored layers and protected everywhere. An individual AI-generated shot is generally unprotected on its own in the US, has no settled EU-level case law, and in the UK may fall under a computer-generated works rule the government has proposed to remove.

This is not legal advice; the primary texts control, and a specific project needs counsel.

Three jurisdictions side by side

Dimension	United States	United Kingdom	European Union
Threshold	Human authorship (Office policy, upheld by courts)	Original work by a human author; output with no human author is a separate “computer-generated” category (CDPA ss 9(3), 178)	Author’s own intellectual creation (directives, CJEU case law)
Prompts only	Prompts alone are insufficient for authorship	Not settled; the Act does not say who “made the arrangements” for AI output	No settled ruling; generally insufficient under the existing test
Purely AI output	Not protectable, not registrable	Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic output protected for 50 years as a computer-generated work; removal proposed in March 2026	Not protectable
Registration / disclosure	Registration must disclose AI-generated material (March 2023 guidance)	No copyright register	No registration system
Key rulings / documents	Copyright Office Part 2 report, 29 Jan 2025; Thaler v. Perlmutter	CDPA 1988 ss 9(3), 12(7), 178; Report on Copyright and AI, 18 Mar 2026	AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Labeling / transparency	No federal labeling mandate (state laws vary)	Government proposes to work with industry on labeling best practice (Mar 2026)	AI Act Article 50 from 2 Aug 2026
Training data	Copyright Office Part 3 (pre-publication May 2025); litigation ongoing	Text and data mining exception for non-commercial research only (s 29A); broad opt-out exception no longer the preferred option (Mar 2026)	DSM Directive Art. 4 TDM opt-out; AI Act Art. 53 copyright policy

US and EU rows checked 2 September 2026, UK rows 12 September 2026. Summary only; the texts and judgments control.

United Kingdom: a computer-generated works rule, proposed for removal

Since 1988 the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act has had a category for output with no human author. A work is “computer-generated” when it is “generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work” (s 178). For a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work of that kind, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” (s 9(3)), and copyright runs 50 years from the end of the year it was made, instead of the usual term tied to the author’s life (s 12(7)).

Two limits matter for a drama. The rule names literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, while films have their own authorship rule (the producer and the principal director, s 9(2)(ab)), so how it applies to a generated video shot is not straightforward. And the Act does not say who “made the arrangements” for AI output: the user, the tool’s operator or the model’s developer.

On 18 March 2026 the government’s Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence proposed that this protection “should be removed, while copyright should continue to protect works created with AI assistance”. As of the check date the provision is unamended on legislation.gov.uk. For a drama team the practical rule is the same as elsewhere: the generation record is itself the evidence of rights — prompt versions, parameters, reference images, rejected takes, editing decisions — because it shows where a human author contributed.

United States: human authorship is the gate, prompts do not pass it, registration requires disclosure

The US Copyright Office published Part 2 of its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence report, on copyrightability, on 29 January 2025. Four conclusions: copyright requires human authorship; prompts alone are insufficient to make the user an author, because the user does not control how the expression is rendered; where a human contributes perceptible expressive elements to an AI-assisted work (creative modification of the output, original selection and arrangement), that contribution is protectable; and decisions are made case by case.

At registration, the Office’s 16 March 2023 guidance requires applicants to disclose AI-generated material and disclaim it. Omitting the disclosure can affect the validity of the registration.

The leading case is Thaler v. Perlmutter. Dr Stephen Thaler sought to register an image generated autonomously by his AI system, naming himself as author by virtue of owning the system; the Office refused. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the refusal in March 2025, confirming the human authorship requirement. As of the check date, several major law firms report that the Supreme Court denied certiorari on 2 March 2026, leaving the appellate ruling in place. We did not obtain the Court’s order list itself; that document controls.

For a drama team distributing in the US: script, storyboard, editing and music arrangement are registrable; the AI-generated footage itself must be excluded on the application.

European Union: no AI exception in copyright, transparency under the AI Act, and an opt-out for training

The EU has not legislated specifically on AI output. Copyright follows the existing test: a work must be the “author’s own intellectual creation”, the threshold the Court of Justice has applied since 2009. Non-human output does not meet it; AI-assisted work is judged on the human contribution. As of the check date there is no EU-level ruling on the copyrightability of AI video.

What bears directly on a drama is Article 50 of the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), applicable from 2 August 2026. Providers of generative systems must mark output in a machine-readable way and enable detection; deployers must disclose deepfakes clearly. For generative systems already on the market before 2 August 2026, the marking duty is deferred to December 2026. Article 50(4) narrows the deepfake disclosure for content that is evidently artistic, creative or satirical to a form that does not hamper the display of the work. In June 2026 the Commission published a voluntary Code of Practice and three optional labeling icons.

On training data, Article 4 of the DSM Directive (2019/790) lets rightholders opt out of text and data mining, and Article 53 of the AI Act requires general-purpose model providers to adopt a copyright policy that honours that opt-out. For your own series this cuts the other way: a machine-readable opt-out is what keeps your public scripts and character sheets out of other people’s training sets.

Tool terms: who owns the output and whether you can sell it

Copyright law decides whether a right exists; the tool’s terms decide whether you may use the output. Summaries of four major video tools’ published terms follow (checked 2 September 2026; paraphrased, not quoted; the current text controls).

Tool	Output ownership	Commercial use	Licence back to the vendor
Kling (global paid-service terms)	Paid members own the IP in generated content	Paid members’ commercial use is “not restricted”, except to build competing products; free-tier watermark and commercial limits per current terms	Licence to the vendor, including for training
Dreamina (international terms)	User owns inputs and outputs subject to compliance	Terms describe the service as for private, non-commercial use; a paid plan is not automatic commercial clearance	Perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, survives termination
Runway (terms updated 11 May 2026)	Section 4.4: the company does not claim ownership of inputs or outputs	Not restricted, subject to compliance with the agreement	Non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, sub-licensable, for training and improving models
Hailuo (MiniMax) (hailuoai.video terms)	Paid subscribers retain all IP in generated, downloaded content	Paid plans include commercial use; free output is watermarked	Non-exclusive licence to operate and improve the service; does not affect ownership

Three patterns recur. First, “you own the output” almost always comes with a licence back, so your finished episodes may enter the vendor’s training set. Second, free and paid tiers carry different commercial rights, usually tied to the watermark. Third, terms differ by region; a tool’s regional agreements are separate documents, so archive the one that governs your account.

Real faces and real voices: publicity rights and consent

Beyond copyright, the risk a drama team most often trips on is personality rights. In the US these are state law. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act, in force since 1 July 2024, gives every individual a property right in their name, photograph, voice and likeness, defines voice to include a simulation of it, and makes it actionable to knowingly publish an unauthorised voice or likeness, or to distribute a tool whose primary purpose is producing a particular person’s voice or likeness without authorisation (Public Chapter 588).

Courts are applying existing law as well. In Lehrman v. Lovo (S.D.N.Y., 10 July 2025), two voice actors alleged that their recordings had been used to build and sell AI clones of their voices. The court held that, for the most part, they had not stated claims under federal trademark or copyright law, but that claims for misappropriation of a voice could proceed under Sections 50 and 51 of New York’s Civil Rights Law, alongside consumer-protection and breach-of-contract claims (opinion). In the UK, the March 2026 report proposes to explore options including a new digital replica or personality right.

For a drama team: a real face in a reference image or a real voice in a reference clip needs a written licence that expressly covers AI training and synthesis. A licence to use the photograph or recording as a work is not enough. If you build character sheets from an actor’s headshots, the contract must say so. See AI voice for drama and reference audio.

Six things to do before licensing a series

Build the evidence chain: script drafts, storyboard scripts, prompt and parameter logs, reference image provenance, rejected takes, editing decisions, filed per episode. This is the evidence the US “human contribution” test and the EU “own intellectual creation” test both look for.
Inventory rights by layer: script, storyboard, dialogue, edit, music selection. Mark which layers are human-authored and which are AI-generated. License layer by layer.
Archive each tool’s terms: the version in force, the account tier (free or paid), the commercial clause and the licence-back, captured at the time of generation.
Clear likenesses and voices: written consent covering AI synthesis for every real reference image and audio clip; otherwise use preset voices and invented faces.
Map labeling duties: the EU under Article 50 from 2 August 2026; YouTube and TikTok under their own disclosure rules. See AI-generated content label.
Put it in the contract: disclose AI share and tools to the licensee accurately, and limit warranties to the layers you can actually warrant.

A fuller list is in the copyright and labeling checklist.

Key figures and sources

Figure	Value	Source	Date
US Copyright Office Part 2 report	Published 29 Jan 2025; human authorship required; prompts alone insufficient; human expressive contributions protectable	www.copyright.gov	2026-09-02
UK computer-generated works	CDPA 1988 s 9(3): author is the person who made the arrangements; 50-year term under s 12(7)	www.legislation.gov.uk	2026-09-12
UK Report on Copyright and AI	18 Mar 2026; proposes removing protection for wholly computer-generated works; broad TDM opt-out exception no longer preferred	www.gov.uk	2026-09-12
EU AI Act Article 50	Transparency duties apply from 2 Aug 2026; marking duty for systems already on the market deferred to December 2026	digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu	2026-09-12
Tennessee ELVIS Act	In force 1 Jul 2024; name, photograph, voice (including a simulation) and likeness protected as property rights	publications.tnsosfiles.com	2026-09-12
Lehrman v. Lovo (S.D.N.Y.)	10 Jul 2025; AI voice-clone claims proceed under NY Civil Rights Law ss 50-51; most federal trademark and copyright claims dismissed	www.nysd.uscourts.gov	2026-09-12

FAQ

Is a short drama I made with AI tools protected in the UK?

The human layers — script, storyboard, dialogue, editing — are protected as anywhere else. For output with no human author, UK law currently has a computer-generated works category (50 years, with the person who made the arrangements as author), but it covers literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the government proposed in March 2026 to remove it, so treat it as an uncertain layer.

Is the prompt itself copyrightable?

A prompt is text; a sufficiently long, original prompt can be protected as a literary work. That is separate from the image or video it produces: the US Copyright Office says prompts do not confer authorship of the output, and the EU test looks for the author’s own intellectual creation in the output itself.

The tool’s terms say the output belongs to me. Is that the end of it?

No. Terms govern your relationship with the vendor; they cannot create a copyright the law does not grant, and nearly all attach a licence-back and free-tier limits. Check the legal threshold and the contract terms before distribution.

What happens if I do not disclose AI material on a US registration?

The Office’s 2023 guidance requires disclosure and a disclaimer of the AI-generated portion. Failing to disclose can lead to cancellation of the registration or challenges to its validity in litigation. Accurate disclosure is the only safe course.

Did the Supreme Court decide Thaler?

As of 2 September 2026: the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Office’s refusal in March 2025; major law firms report that the Supreme Court denied certiorari on 2 March 2026, declining to hear the case and leaving the appellate ruling in place. The Court issued no merits decision on AI authorship. The Court’s order list is the controlling document.

Do I need a release to build a character sheet from an actor’s photos?

Yes, and it must cover AI synthesis. In the US, publicity rights are state law: Tennessee’s ELVIS Act covers simulated voices and likenesses, and in Lehrman v. Lovo a New York federal court let voice-clone claims proceed under the state’s Civil Rights Law. Owning copyright in a photo or recording is not the same as holding the person’s consent.

What do the EU’s August 2026 transparency rules mean for a drama?

Video produced with generative AI must be machine-detectable as AI-generated, and deepfake content must be disclosed to viewers; for evidently artistic works the disclosure may take a form that does not hamper the display. The Commission’s June 2026 Code of Practice and icons show the expected form.