Content that AI creates entirely on its own probably has no copyright under Norwegian law, because the Copyright Act requires original and individual creative effort by a human. If a human reworks the output creatively, the human contribution may be protected. A vendor's promise that you own the output gives no more protection than the law itself provides.
The marketing department creates campaign images with an image generator. The developers let a coding assistant write large parts of a new service. An agency delivers copy that has mainly been written by a language model. In all three cases the question is the same. Who owns the result, and can the business stop others from using it?
The answer depends on how much a human has actually created. That has a direct bearing on the value of the content, on what competitors can copy, and on what you should require in contracts with employees, consultants and agencies.
Can AI-generated content be protected by copyright under Norwegian law?
Only where a human has made a creative contribution. Under Copyright Act § 2 of the Norwegian Copyright Act (åndsverkloven), the person who creates a work has copyright in it. A work means a literary or artistic work that expresses original and individual creative intellectual effort. Texts, photographic works, visual art and computer programs can all be works.
The requirement of original and individual creative effort is generally understood to presuppose a human being. A language model is not a person and cannot be an author. Content that AI produces without a human making the creative choices therefore probably has no copyright.
In Case C-5/08 Infopaq, the Court of Justice of the EU held that protection requires the work to be the author’s own intellectual creation. The requirement has since been followed up in a series of decisions and is also relevant to Norwegian law, since the Copyright Act implements the EU copyright directives through the EEA Agreement.
There is, as yet, no Norwegian judgment on copyright in AI-generated content. The conclusion above is based on the wording of the Act and the originality requirement of the Court of Justice, and it is consistent with legal developments in other countries.
What have the US courts decided on AI copyright?
US law requires human authorship, and the question is now finally settled for works created entirely autonomously. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held on 18 March 2025 that an image created by an AI model on its own could not be registered for copyright. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 2 March 2026.
The court made clear that the requirement does not preclude protection for works made with the help of AI. What matters is that the author is a human. In its report on copyright and AI from January 2025, the US Copyright Office concluded that prompts alone do not give sufficient control over the expression, but that a human may obtain protection for their own contributions, such as creative modification or the selection and arrangement of AI output.
US law is not binding in Norway, but these decisions indicate where the line is likely to be drawn here too.
Where is the line between AI-assisted and AI-generated content?
The line is whether a human has made the creative choices that shape the final expression. The more AI has decided, the weaker the protection.
| Situation | Likely protection |
|---|---|
| AI creates text, an image or code from a short prompt | Probably no copyright |
| Many detailed prompts, but AI determines the expression | Probably no copyright, unsettled |
| A human substantially reworks the AI output | Protection for the human contributions |
| A human selects and arranges AI elements in an original way | Possible protection for the arrangement |
| A human writes the work and uses AI for editing or proofreading | Ordinary copyright for the human |
The risk is greatest for images, because image generators make most of the visual choices themselves. For text and code there is often a continuous interplay between human and machine, and protection must be assessed for the individual parts. In practice it is hard to prove after the event who did what. Anyone who wants protection should therefore document the human contribution.
What does it mean when the vendor says you own the output?
Less than it may seem. In their terms, the major AI vendors assign whatever rights they may have in the output. OpenAI’s EU terms, for example, state that the user owns the output and that OpenAI assigns its rights “if any”, meaning if there are any.
A vendor cannot assign a copyright that never came into existence. The term only ensures that the vendor itself makes no claim to the content. It gives the business no right to stop others from copying it. The terms also often restrict how the output may be used, and they usually offer little protection if the output infringes the rights of others.
Who owns what employees, consultants and agencies create with AI?
For employees, the starting point favours the employer. Copyright in computer programs created by an employee in the course of employment passes to the employer under Copyright Act § 71, unless otherwise agreed. For other works, rights pass under general non-statutory rules to the extent necessary for the employer’s ordinary business. The employment contract should nevertheless deal with this expressly.
For consultants and agencies, the starting point is the reverse. The rights remain with the author unless they have been assigned by contract. Under Copyright Act § 67, the author is not deemed to have assigned more extensive rights than the contract clearly expresses. Under Copyright Act § 68, an assignment does not include the right to alter the work unless otherwise agreed.
AI adds a new risk to such contracts. If the agency has largely let AI create the deliverable, there may be no copyright to assign. The business has then paid for exclusivity it does not get. The contract should therefore require the supplier to disclose its use of AI and to warrant that the deliverable does not infringe the rights of others. See also the article on vibe lawyering about the risk of contracts drafted with AI without legal review.
What does this mean for the business’s risk?
The greatest risk is that content you regard as an asset is not protected. Logos, campaign material and product designs mainly created by AI can probably be copied by others without the Copyright Act giving you any remedy. Protection may then have to be sought in other ways, for example by registering a trade mark or a design.
For code, the picture is mixed. The parts written or substantially reworked by the developers are protected in the usual way. Code kept secret may also be protected as a trade secret, regardless of copyright. Read more in the article on trade secrets and AI tools.
What AI creates alone, nobody owns. What humans create with AI, you can own, but only if the contracts and documentation are in place.
The opposite risk is that the AI output resembles someone else’s protected work. Under Copyright Act § 81, an infringer may have to pay remuneration and damages, and even a party who acted in good faith may have to pay reasonable remuneration for the use.
What should the business do?
- Decide what needs to be protected. Use people for what is meant to be a lasting asset, such as the logo, core code and key texts, and use AI as a tool along the way.
- Document the human contribution. Keep drafts, versions and decisions that show who made the creative choices.
- Update contracts with consultants and agencies. Require disclosure of AI use, an express assignment of rights, a right to make alterations and a warranty against infringing the rights of others.
- Address copyright in employment contracts. Do not rely solely on non-statutory rules for works other than computer programs.
- Check output before commercial use. Images, logos and code in particular should be checked for similarity with others’ works and for licence terms.
- Adopt internal rules. Specify which tools may be used for what, in line with the business’s AI policy for employees.
The law is still developing, and both court decisions and legislative changes may alter the picture. More articles on the subject are available on the topic page on artificial intelligence.
Questions and answers
Can a competitor copy text or images we have created with AI?
If the content was made by AI without substantial human creative input, it probably has no copyright, and you cannot then stop copying under the Copyright Act. Other rules may still give protection, such as trade mark law, the Marketing Control Act's rules on good business practice, or contracts.
Is writing good prompts enough to obtain copyright?
Probably not. The US Copyright Office has concluded that prompts alone do not give sufficient control over the expression. The question has not been decided under Norwegian law, but the same result is likely under the requirement of original and individual creative effort.
Can we be liable if the AI output resembles someone else's work?
Yes. If you use output that reproduces protected parts of someone else's work, it may be an infringement. Under Copyright Act § 81, even a party acting in good faith may have to pay reasonable remuneration. Check output that is to be used commercially, particularly images, logos and code.
- Norwegian Copyright Act (åndsverkloven) §§ 2, 67, 68, 69, 71 and 81
- Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-5/08 Infopaq International (16 July 2009) ECLI:EU:C:2009:465
- Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 18 March 2025)
- SCOTUSblog, Thaler v. Perlmutter (25-449), certiorari denied 2 March 2026
- U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability
- OpenAI, EU terms of use
Next legal review: 15 January 2027