The Copyright Trap: Who Owns AI-Generated Content?

Vanderbilt Law scholar Daniel Gervais argues that works lacking human creative choices reside firmly in the public domain. When a user prompts a chatbot to draft a LinkedIn post or an article and publishes it verbatim, that output lacks an author in the eyes of the law. Consequently, no copyright exists to be transferred to publishers or platforms. This creates a precarious landscape where creators gain no intellectual property rights but inherit full legal liability for the content they publish under their own names.

The distinction hinges on the degree of human input. While casual posts carry little commercial weight, the stakes rise for journalists, songwriters, and professional writers. If a user feeds research and specific voice instructions into an LLM, the resulting text remains uncopyrightable. Gervais warns that attempting to claim ownership over AI-generated material is a hollow gesture; it offers no protection from infringement, yet it serves as a formal declaration of responsibility for any potential libel or legal fallout. As the lines between machine-assisted drafting and machine-generated content blur, the absence of clear thresholds for "human contribution" leaves creators operating in a legal vacuum.