Can AI created works attract IP protection in the UK?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP); copyright, patents, database rights, trade secrets and design rights

In the UK, the extent to which AI created works attract IP protection will depend on the type of IP question and whether the work was autonomously created by AI or under significant human direction.

Copyright protection for AI created works

UK copyright law is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Section 9(3) of the CDPA provides a unique position on computer-generated works:

“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

This provision allows computer generated works (i.e. those with no human author) to attract copyright protection, with the author being the person who made the arrangements necessary, usually the operator or developer of the AI.

The requirements are as follows:

• The work must fall within one of the protected categories (literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, films, sound recordings, or broadcasts)
• It must be original; for AI generated works, originality does not require human creativity but that arrangements were made by a human to generate the work.

Copyright for AI generated content lasts 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made (shorter than the traditional approach to human created works such as music which are protected for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years after the author’s death).

To further mitigate legal risk in relation to AI-generated works and their copyright status, businesses should ensure that contracts with AI developers or operators include explicit purpose limitation clauses. These clauses must restrict any party from repurposing outputs or underlying data beyond contractually agreed purposes without prior written consent and a documented assessment of compatibility with original intentions.

Copyright limits for AI created works:

• There is no protection for works where no human was involved in the creative process (i.e. fully autonomous AI acting without human direction will most likely fall outside)
• The interpretation of “arrangements necessary” is not clearly defined — ownership disputes may arise over who did the most to enable the AI to produce the work (e.g. user vs developer vs trainer)
• There are also differences in the approach to AI created works across different jurisdictions, (for example, Beijing Internet Court (BIC) previously ruled in an infringement lawsuit that AI generated image is copyrightable and that a person who prompted the AI generated image is entitled to the right of authorship under Chinese Copyright Law[1]), whereas, AI works may face difficulty in foreign jurisdictions like the EU[2] or US[3], where human authorship is generally required for copyright protection.

Patent protection and AI

Under the UK Patents Act 1977, a patent can only be granted for an invention made by a person. This position was confirmed in the high-profile DABUS cases in the UK, EU, and US.

• The UK Supreme Court dismissed an appeal affirming that AI systems cannot be named as inventors, and that an inventor must be a natural person[4]
• Patents may be granted for inventions created using AI, but the inventor must still be a human, even if AI played a central role in the inventive process[5]

So where does this leave us in terms of ownership? The owner of the patent will usually be the employer of the human inventor or the individual inventor if not employed.

AI developers or users who direct the AI may still obtain patents provided they do not claim the AI itself as the inventor.

Database rights and AI

The UK Database right (under the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997) protects the investment in creating databases.

• If AI is used to generate or compile data into a structured database, the human or organisation who made the investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the content will likely hold the database right
• In terms of duration, database rights protect the contents of a database and lasts for 15 years from the creation of the database or 15 years from the most recent substantial update

Trade secrets / confidential information and AI

Where AI systems generate valuable outputs (e.g. market predictions, algorithms, code), and these are not publicly disclosed, trade secret protection may apply under common law breach of confidence and The Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 (UK implementation of the EU Directive).

This protects valuable, confidential AI generated materials where reasonable steps are taken to keep them undisclosed. Contracts should include robust indemnity clauses allocating liability between parties if trade secrets/confidential information are misused due to acts/omissions by sellers/providers, including uncapped indemnities where breaches result from gross negligence/wilful misconduct, and require notification/assistance if regulatory action arises from such misuse or breach of confidentiality obligations relating to outputs/data handled by third parties on behalf of businesses deploying/using AIs generating confidential material.

Design rights and AI

AI generated designs may possibly attract UK unregistered design right if they satisfy the originality and fixation requirements. However, for registered designs, the applicant must still be a human/legal person – not the AI system itself[6].

The question of who owns a design generated via AI will again depend on who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the design.

The UK is relatively AI friendly in its IP framework compared to other jurisdictions particularly in copyright law. However, legal uncertainty still exists, especially as AI becomes more autonomous. Ongoing government and IPO consultations may reshape this area further in coming years.

Practical steps for businesses using AI in the IP-sensitive environments

As businesses increasingly explore the use of AI to support innovation, design and context creation, it is important to ensure that IP risks are properly understood and managed. To maximise protection and minimise exposure, we recommend:

• Using AI tools to assist in creating or modifying unregistered or in-development IP with appropriate safeguards in place
• Training employees on the risks of inputting confidential information, existing IP, or commercially sensitive material into AI tools
• Carrying out regular legal and compliance reviews to stay ahead of the fast-moving UK and international regulatory environment
• Clearly defining ownership, authorship, and confidentiality obligations in all AI-related agreements, (e.g. developer, licensor, or supplier contracts)
• Maintaining robust internal data governance and documenting human input, essentially where IP protection is likely to be sought (e.g. copyright or design filings).

By taking these practical steps, businesses can use AI effectively and responsibly while strengthening their IP strategy and staying prepared for future legal developments.

Contact us if you have any queries on how AI may impact your IP rights, or would like advice on risk mitigation and compliance.

[1] Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279

[2] [CZ] Artificial intelligence cannot create an author’s work, the court stated

[3] Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office

[4] Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Respondent)

[5]https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/epo-publishes-grounds-its-decision-refuse-two-patent-applications-naming-machine

[6] Artificial intelligence call for views: designs