Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Protection in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence is no longer science fiction, it’s a tool that inventors, authors, artists, and entrepreneurs are using to brainstorm, write, design, and even generate new inventions. But when AI is part of the creative process, who owns the rights? Can you patent or copyright something if a machine helped make it? And what happens if AI produces a logo or phrase that resembles someone else’s brand?

In recent years, the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have issued important guidance, and federal courts have weighed in, shaping a new legal landscape. Here’s what you need to know.

Copyright: Human Authorship Is Essential

U.S. copyright law protects original works of human authorship. The Copyright Office and courts have made clear that purely AI-generated material — text, images, music, or video with no meaningful human input, is not copyrightable.[1]

A federal court reaffirmed this in 2023 when it rejected a claim that an AI system could be an author, holding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship.[2]

In February 2024, the Copyright Office published its Copyright Registration Guidance for Works Containing Material Generated by AI, which remains the operative standard. It states that applicants must disclose any AI-generated portions of a work and claim copyright only for the human-authored elements.[3]

In the Zarya of the Dawn case, the Office registered the human-written text and the creative arrangement of images, but explicitly excluded the Midjourney-generated illustrations because they were “not the product of human authorship.”[4]

In January 2025, the Copyright Office released its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part II, Copyrightability Report, which reaffirmed the central principle: AI is a tool, not an author. Human creativity must be perceptible in the final work for copyright to apply.[5]

Takeaway: Use AI to enhance your creativity, but make sure your human input is clear and substantial. The law protects your original expression, not the machine’s raw output.

Trademark: Branding Still Belongs to You

Trademarks are different. Rights in a trademark come from using a name, logo, or slogan in commerce to identify your goods or services — not from who created it. That means you (or your business) can register and own a trademark even if an AI tool helped generate it, so long as the mark is distinctive and not confusingly similar to an existing one.[6]

But there are important caveats:

• Clearance matters. AI systems can output names or logos that look a lot like existing brands. You must run clearance searches before using them to avoid infringement claims.[7]

• Specimens must be real. The USPTO has warned that AI-generated mock-ups (like a logo pasted on a fake product image) cannot serve as acceptable specimens of use; the mark has to be used on actual goods or services in the marketplace.[8]

• Copyright gaps. An AI-generated logo might be registrable as a trademark, but it may lack copyright protection if there’s no human authorship. That means you can stop competitors from using it as a source identifier, but you might not be able to stop others from reproducing the artwork in different contexts.[9]

• Duplicate outputs. If two businesses use the same AI tool and get similar results, the first to use a mark in commerce will usually win rights.[7]

Takeaway: AI can be a helpful branding assistant, but you need to make sure the mark is distinctive, cleared, and tied to your business’s use. Adding human creative input also strengthens your copyright position.

Patents: AI as Tool, Not Inventor

Patents protect inventions, but here, the law is strict. Only humans can be inventors. In Thaler v. Vidal (2022), the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons, rejecting attempts to list AI systems such as “DABUS” as inventors.[10]

The USPTO continues to follow this rule.

In February 2024, the USPTO issued its Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, clarifying that AI-assisted inventions are not automatically unpatentable. To be valid, each claim must reflect a significant contribution from a human inventor. Simply accepting an AI’s output is not enough; the human must exercise judgment and shape the inventive concept.[11]

A recent peer-reviewed study published in AI EDAM in February 2025 tested ChatGPT-4 against human engineering teams in a 48-hour design hackathon. The AI excelled at generating diverse ideas and helping participants break free from design fixation. However, it struggled with technical feasibility, often abandoning promising ideas too quickly and introducing unnecessary complexity.[12] This research supports the USPTO’s position: AI is a valuable ideation tool, but it cannot replace the human act of invention.

Takeaway: If you’re using AI in R&D, treat it like any other tool, powerful, but incomplete. Ensure a human makes the inventive leap, and keep detailed documentation of how you directed and refined AI output. This record will be critical if inventorship is challenged in examination, post-grant review, or litigation.

Risks, Gray Areas, and Emerging Issues

• Copyright gaps: Pure AI outputs are not protectable and fall into the public domain.[5]

• Trademark collisions: Two businesses may get similar AI-generated names or logos; rights go to the first user in commerce.[7]

• Patent inventorship challenges: Patents can be invalidated if no human inventor is identified. The patent owner must prove human contribution.[11]

• Training data echoes: AI outputs sometimes resemble existing works, raising infringement risks.[7]

• Global divergence: Some countries, like the UK, recognize “computer-generated works” differently than the U.S., creating uncertainty for international protection.[1]

• AI brand voices and personas: Using AI to mimic celebrities or existing brands can raise right-of-publicity and trademark issues.[13]

Practical Tips for Creators and Entrepreneurs

• Add human creativity. Use AI as a draft or ideation tool, but ensure your creative judgment is clear.

• Be transparent. Disclose AI use in copyright filings; claim only what you created.

• Run clearance searches. Vet AI-generated names, logos, and slogans before launch.

• Check tool terms. Confirm you own the rights to commercialize AI outputs.

• Document your role. Save prompts, drafts, edits, and claim notes.

• Review outputs. Check for plagiarism or lookalike trademarks.

• Avoid imitation. Don’t copy existing brands, characters, or voices with AI.

• Layer protection. Pair trademarks with human-authored copyright; consider patents or trade secrets for inventions.

• Stay updated. Both the Copyright Office and USPTO continue to update their AI policies.

Final Word

As this area of law develops, the safest strategy is to treat AI as a collaborator, not a creator, and to document your own contributions. Doing so will keep your innovations and brand both defensible and valuable. For every step of the process, Brandon Lorenz Stephens Law can guide you. Schedule a consultation today or call at (480) 559-9076.

Contact The Firm

Footnotes

1. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023).

2. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also D.D.C. opinion (Aug. 18, 2023) affirming that AI systems cannot be authors.

3. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 10168 (Feb. 13, 2024).

4. U.S. Copyright Office, Zarya of the Dawn Registration Decision Letter (Feb. 21, 2023).

5. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part II – Copyrightability Report (Jan. 2025).

6. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Artificial Intelligence and Trademarks (USPTO, 2024).

7. Von Bryant & Rich, AI-Generated Logos: Practical IP Risks, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 2025).

8. USPTO, Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Practice Before the USPTO (2024).

9. Foley & Lardner LLP, Trademark and Copyright in AI-Generated Logos (2025).

10. Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

11. USPTO, Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024).

12. K. McComb et al., ChatGPT as an inventor: Eliciting the strengths and weaknesses of current large language models against humans in engineering design, AI EDAM, Cambridge University Press (Feb. 27, 2025).

13. Fredrikson & Byron, Voice Actor Lawsuits Against AI Companies and Publicity Rights (2025).