Reference guide

Who owns AI-generated game assets? Copyright in Australia, the US, UK and EU

Official US and EU sources say copyright needs a human author, and Australia's Arts Law Centre says the same. So purely AI-generated assets may not be protected, while your own creative input can be. The UK still protects "computer-generated works", though its government proposed removing that in March 2026. Tool terms are a separate question.

  1. Make the asset
  2. 2Record your input
  3. 3Read the tool's terms
  4. 4Check where you sell
  5. 5Ask a lawyer if it matters

This is general information, not legal advice. Copyright law differs by country and is changing quickly. For a decision about your game, talk to a lawyer.

The short answer by country

WherePurely AI outputHuman input, and the latest change
AustraliaArts Law: "it is possible that works generated by AI which don't have enough human input won't be protected"Likely protected if a human contributed "independent intellectual effort". Latest: Arts Law says there is "no definite answer yet" on how much is enough source
United States"Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material" (Copyright Office, 29 Jan 2025)Human expression, selection, arrangement and creative modifications are protected. Latest: Supreme Court denied cert in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2 Mar 2026 source
United KingdomProtected as a "computer-generated" work for 50 years (CDPA s9(3), s12(7))Normal copyright for works with a human author. Latest: government proposed removing computer-generated protection, 18 Mar 2026 (no change to the Act yet) source
European UnionParliament: content "fully generated by AI" that doesn't meet the criteria "should remain ineligible"A work must be the "author's own intellectual creation" (CJEU case law). Latest: Parliament resolution, 10 Mar 2026 (not legislation) source

Everyone: steps 1–2

  1. Split it into two questions

    1. Question 1, the law: does copyright protect this asset at all? That depends on how much a human contributed and on the country.
    2. Question 2, the contract: what do the tool's terms let you do with the output, and what does the vendor keep? That's on each tool's listing.
    3. A tool saying "you own the output" answers question 2, not question 1. Cursor's terms, for example, assign you its rights in Suggestions "if any".

    You should see: Two separate answers for each AI-made asset: whether it may be protected, and what the tool allows.

    Watch out: Free plans often differ: Meshy's free-plan output is CC BY 4.0 (credit required), Leonardo's free tier keeps the rights and licenses them to you, and Runway says outputs may be used to train its models.

    From the official docs: Cursor Terms of Service, 5.3 ↗

  2. Keep a record of what you made yourself

    1. Save your sketches, layered source files, edits and paint-overs alongside the AI output.
    2. Keep your prompts and iteration history, and note what you changed after generation.
    3. Note which tool and plan made each asset, and the date.

    You should see: A folder per asset showing the human steps, which is what the Copyright Office and Arts Law both look at.

    Watch out: The US Copyright Office says "prompts do not alone provide sufficient control" with current generally available technology, so a prompt log on its own may not show authorship.

    From the official docs: US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 2 ↗

Then pick your path

Australia

  1. What Arts Law says about human authorship

    1. Arts Law: "a work can only be protected by copyright in Australia if there is a human author who contributed 'independent intellectual effort'".
    2. It adds: "it is possible that works generated by AI which don't have enough human input won't be protected by copyright", and if you contributed independent intellectual effort, the work "would likely be protected".
    3. "AI tools do not currently have a legal status and cannot own copyright. It is the human contributor who would own copyright if a work was protected."

    You should see: Your own edits to an image are the clearest case: Arts Law says that if you made an image and used AI to edit it, the human contribution is "likely to be enough".

    Watch out: Arts Law says it "remains unclear" whether contributions like "writing, tweaking and training the algorithm, or pre-selecting and editing the output" are enough, and that there is "no definite answer yet".

    From the official docs: Arts Law Centre of Australia: AI and copyright ↗

United States

  1. What the Copyright Office concluded

    1. Part 2 of its AI report (29 Jan 2025): "Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements."
    2. "Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material."
    3. Human authors are entitled to copyright in their work that is perceptible in AI outputs, and in "the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement" of material in the outputs, or "creative modifications" of them.

    You should see: The parts of the final asset you can point to as your own expression, selection, arrangement or modification are the parts the Office says can be protected.

    Watch out: Whether your contribution is enough "must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis".

    From the official docs: US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 2 ↗

  2. Registering a game with AI content

    1. The Office's registration guidance (16 Mar 2023) says applicants "have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content" and to briefly explain the human author's contributions.
    2. "AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be explicitly excluded from the application."
    3. Don't list an AI technology or the company that provided it as an author.

    You should see: An application that claims only the human-authored parts and names the AI material it excludes.

    Watch out: If you're unsure how to fill in the form, the guidance says you can give a general statement that the work contains AI-generated material, and the Office will contact you.

    From the official docs: Copyright Office registration guidance ↗

  3. What the courts decided in Thaler

    1. The D.C. Circuit (decided 18 Mar 2025) upheld the human-authorship requirement for a work listing an AI system as its sole author.
    2. It said the requirement "does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence".
    3. The Supreme Court denied Thaler's petition on 2 Mar 2026 (No. 25-449).

    You should see: A settled rule that a machine can't be the author, with the question of how much human input is enough left open.

    Watch out: Thaler listed the machine as the sole author, so the court said line-drawing disputes over how much AI contributed were "neither here nor there in this case".

    From the official docs: Thaler v. Perlmutter, D.C. Cir. ↗

United Kingdom

  1. The computer-generated works rule

    1. CDPA 1988 s9(3): for a computer-generated work, "the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken".
    2. Computer-generated means generated by computer "in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work" (s178).
    3. Copyright in a computer-generated work lasts 50 years from the end of the year it was made (s12(7)).

    You should see: The UK is the one place on this page where the law itself names an author for output with no human author.

    Watch out: s9(3) doesn't name who that person is for any particular AI tool, so ask a lawyer if it matters to a deal.

    From the official docs: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s9 ↗

  2. The March 2026 proposal to remove it

    1. The government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (18 Mar 2026): "in the absence of evidence of its ongoing value, we propose that this specific type of protection should be removed, while copyright should continue to protect works created with AI assistance."
    2. It also says it will "continue to monitor the use and impact" of the protection.

    You should see: A proposal, not a change: legislation.gov.uk lists no outstanding changes to s9 on our check date.

    Watch out: Check this section again before you rely on it.

    From the official docs: GOV.UK: Report on Copyright and AI ↗

European Union

  1. What the European Parliament said

    1. Resolution of 10 March 2026 on copyright and generative AI: "EU copyright law remains grounded in the principles of human authorship".
    2. It recalls the CJEU's test: a work must be "an original subject matter that reflects the author's own intellectual creation".
    3. Paragraph 25: "content fully generated by AI that does not meet the established criteria for copyright protection should remain ineligible for copyright protection".

    You should see: The same direction as the US: human creative choices are what copyright protects.

    Watch out: This is a Parliament resolution on an own-initiative report (2025/2058(INI)), not legislation.

    From the official docs: European Parliament resolution P10_TA(2026)0066 ↗

Questions

Who owns art I generate with an AI tool?

Two things decide it: whether the law protects it at all (US and EU sources and Australia's Arts Law say that needs a human author, while the UK has a computer-generated works rule) and what the tool's terms say. This is general information, not legal advice. source

Is AI-generated art copyrighted in Australia?

Arts Law says protection needs a human author who contributed "independent intellectual effort", so AI-generated works without enough human input may not be protected. It also says it's unclear how much input is enough. source

What did the US Supreme Court decide about AI art?

It denied Thaler's petition on 2 March 2026 (No. 25-449), leaving in place the D.C. Circuit ruling that a work needs a human author. That court said works made with the assistance of AI can still be protected. source

Does the UK protect AI-generated works?

For now, CDPA s9(3) treats the person who made the arrangements as the author of a computer-generated work, with 50 years of protection. The government proposed removing this on 18 March 2026, and legislation.gov.uk showed no pending change to s9 on 24 Oct 2026. source

If a tool says I own the output, do I hold copyright?

The tool's terms are a contract between you and the vendor. Whether copyright exists is a separate legal question. Cursor's terms, for example, assign you its rights "if any". Not legal advice. source

Is this legal advice?

No. It's general information with sources and dates. Talk to a lawyer about your own situation. source

This is a summary of the linked sources on the check date, not legal advice. Not covered on this check: Australian court cases and government consultations, the EU AI Act's labelling rules and employer ownership of staff-made assets. Written from the official documentation linked on each step and checked . No vendor reviews or pays for these guides.

Can I ship it? cheat sheet · Steam & store AI disclosure rules · Open-weights licences · Meshy · Leonardo.Ai · Runway · Cursor · GitHub Copilot · Midjourney · Scenario