01own_the_output.ts
doYouOwnTheOutput
// verdict: noCode written entirely by an AI tool has no human author, so under U.S. copyright law it cannot be copyrighted, and you cannot own it.
for founders, engineering leaders, and counsel shipping AI-generated code
Who owns the code?
AI code
==
no author
==
no copyright
Under current U.S. copyright law, purely AI-generated code has no human author, so it cannot be copyrighted and cannot be defended as an asset you truly own.
~/startup git:(main) $ whoami --code
checking authorship of ./generated ...
# purely AI output, no human authorship on record
author: none
copyright: not eligible
status: unowned, undefendable
~/startup git:(main) $ assess --my-risk
Our guidance applies to code generated from every AI tool
the four things teams miss
Four ways AI code puts ownership at risk
Ownership is not a formality you fix later. It is decided by who authored the expressive work, line by line.
02vibe_coding.ts
vibeCodingRealExposure
// the AI did the expressive workWhen you let the AI make the creative decisions, the code is not human-authored, and code that is not human-authored is not a protectable asset.
03mixed_codebase.ts
mixedCodebases
// you own only what you authorIn a codebase that mixes human and AI work, you own the parts a person meaningfully wrote. The AI-generated parts stay unprotected until a human reworks them.
04open_source.ts
openSourceIsNotNoCopyright
// a license needs an owner to grant itOpen source is not the same as no copyright. A license only holds if someone owns the code, so an open-source license placed on pure AI output has nothing to enforce.
the case law, as a commit history
Four anchors already merged into the record
These are not predictions. Each is a recent decision or report that hardened the rule: no human author, no protection.
Supreme Court denied cert in Thaler; human-authorship rule stands
The Court declined to review the D.C. Circuit's ruling, leaving the human authorship requirement as settled U.S. copyright law unless Congress acts.
+ human authorship: settled law
- purely AI-generated code: still not eligible
- purely AI-generated code: still not eligible
Works created entirely by AI are not eligible for copyright
The court confirmed that only humans can hold copyright protection; a work generated wholly by a machine has no author the law will recognize.
- machine-authored work: protected
+ machine-authored work: not eligible
+ machine-authored work: not eligible
First decision to reject a fair-use defense for AI training
The first ruling to reject a fair-use defense for using copyrighted material to train an AI, narrowing a shield many teams assumed they had.
- training on copyrighted data: fair use
+ training on copyrighted data: defense rejected
+ training on copyrighted data: defense rejected
Only meaningful human creative input is eligible for protection
The Office stated that only portions of a work carrying meaningful human creative input are eligible for protection. The AI-generated remainder is not.
+ human-authored portions: protected
- AI-generated portions: unprotected
- AI-generated portions: unprotected
run the check before your next release
Find out what you actually own
A short assessment maps where AI-generated code sits in your stack and where your ownership quietly breaks down.