Copyright is an important factor to consider when using AI tools or content to support your study, research, or teaching.

As courts and policymakers continue to address the legal and technical issues surrounding intellectual property (IP) and copyright in the development and use of GAI, it can be challenging to determine whether your use of these tools is both legal and ethical.

The following outlines some of the copyright concerns and gives recommendations for managing the risks and using GAI tools responsibly.

RISK: Prompt material is ingested and reused by the AI model, thereby breaching copyright or licensing terms.

Most AI platforms require users to confirm (warrant) that they have permission to upload content. If it is not your own work, check the copyright and licensing agreement before uploading it.

Some platforms require users to grant the AI developer a licence to use uploaded content for refining or training the model. Sublicensing third party material without permission may infringe copyright or breach a licence agreement.

Using a link to material that is legitimately freely available is generally permitted.

• If you want to upload a copy of the material, you need to check:
  1. The copyright and licensing conditions or obtain permission from the copyright owner (see the 'Copyright of input' table below).
  2. The AI platform terms of use in relation to user content:
     - Do they claim ownership of inputs?
     - Do they require you to give them permission or a licence to use your inputs?
     - Do they claim rights in the outputs? (see the 'Platform terms of use' summary below).

RISK: False attribution resulting from reliance on AI search engine chatbots.

AI is integrated into a number of search engines and their chatbots offer alternatives to traditional keyword searches. Instead of scrolling through multiple pages in search results, you can get a top level summary that seems to understand the nuances of natural language. The best ones will even include links to their sources. 

Even if an AI summary includes links to real, rather than hallucinated references, the information it is quoting may not come from that reference or may be misinterpreted. Do not rely on AI tools for correct citation. Incorrectly attributing an author, repeating an out of context phrase, or stating that someone said something they did not say are all examples of infringing an author's moral rights. 

It is reasonable to use AI search engines for finding information, but you should not quote AI outputs directly. Instead, trace back and check the original source/s before using it:

• Check the facts
• Find the original source 
• Attribute or reference appropriately. 

RISK: Potential lack of IP protection for creative and research outputs where GAI has been used.

The copyright status of GAI outputs varies by jurisdiction. In Australia, human authorship is a prerequisite for copyright protection. The United States follows a similar approach; works not controlled by a human cannot be registered for copyright. Even highly creative prompts typically do not provide the level of control over the GAI’s processing necessary to meet the threshold for copyright registration.

In contrast, the UK and New Zealand recognize copyright in computer-generated works. In these jurisdictions, the 'author' is defined as the person who makes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. However, ambiguity remains over who this person is: the individual prompting the GAI, the creator of the model, or those who trained it.

While most jurisdictions require human authorship for copyright, protection may still be available when a person contributes significantly to the creative process.

According to the Copyright Agency (August 2024), “Australia does not have a copyright registration system. If someone were sued for breach of copyright for using an AI-generated output created by someone else, a court would likely consider the level of human involvement in generating the output and how it was used by the alleged infringer.”

The Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 2 issued by the US Copyright Office (29 Jan 2025) indicates there is potential for copyright protection in the following circumstances:

• Assistive uses: where AI enhances or improves a human-created work.
• Expressive inputs: where a human-created work is uploaded and modified, but the original remains identifiable.
• Rearrangement or editing of AI-generated content.
• Inclusion of AI-generated content within a broader, human-authored work.

To manage copyright and ownership risks when using GAI:

• Keep clear and detailed records of your creative process to demonstrate the extent of human involvement.
• Such records are also useful for proper acknowledgment in academic or professional work.

For outputs that are predominantly AI-generated, consider applying a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) public domain dedication provided you are sure they do not contain infringing content (Creative Commons,18 Aug 2023). Regardless of the level of human input, always acknowledge the use of AI tools.

RISK: Plagiarism and/or infringing third party copyright in GAI outputs.

GAI models are trained on vast amounts of content (data) available over the internet. Some of the content is public domain (free of copyright), but most is protected by copyright. In many cases the content has been used without permission or licences, with no attribution or financial compensation to the copyright creators and owners. This has resulted in high profile copyright lawsuits against AI developers and a great deal of anxiety for individuals whose moral rights (right to attribution) and economic rights (right to control how their work is used) have been infringed.

Copyright laws seek to balance the rights of creators and owners with the right of public access to information, knowledge, and creative works. Research and creative outputs and innovations are built on and inspired by earlier work. Copyright protection encourages and supports creativity but overly strict copyright laws can limit opportunities for innovation and education. Courts and policy makers around the world have always grappled with the challenge of finding a fair balance as new technologies have developed, however lack of transparency in the training data and functioning of AI models adds to the current complications.

Proposed solutions to the issue with copyright infringement and AI training under consideration include:

• Copyright legislation amendments 
• Licensing agreements
• Opt out mechanisms that copyright owners can apply
• Limiting training to public domain material only
• Collective licensing or copyright levies

Until solutions are implemented, users of AI tools need to assess the risks and make their own ethical judgements on how they use and share GAI outputs. If an AI tool generates material that is a copy or substantially similar to another work, it may be infringing the copyright on the original. Liability is unclear, but if you publish it, there is a risk of being held liable for infringement. Even if copyright is not infringed because it is not a clear reproduction of copyrighted content, there is a risk of plagiarism.

Recommendations:

• If GAI produces something really useful, find the source and cite it appropriately. 
• Avoid using GAI to produce output in an individual's personal style.
• Do not publish AI generated recognisable fictional characters or pop-culture.

RISK: GAI outputs may impact the creativity industry market.

GAI is capable of producing original material that does not infringe copyright or plagiarise. However, there is potential for GAI material to impact the market for human creativity. Artists, authors and musicians earn royalties through platforms such as Spotify, image stock libraries and YouTube. By using material generated with AI as background music or for illustration, people relying on royalty income may lose some of the market share. This 9News Article on 12 April 2025, 'This is taking away from me making a living' by Evie Hilliar illustrates the issue.

Recommendation:

• Use human creative content in preference to GAI material whenever possible.