QWE AI Academy When you generate an image with Midjourney or DALL-E, the platform’s terms say you own it. US copyright law? It says you don’t – at least not the way that stops someone else from copying it. That gap isn’t a technicality. A liability trap, and most tutorials skip it entirely.
You’re here because you need to know: can you actually protect AI-generated images, who’s liable when things go wrong, what the recent court cases mean for anyone publishing AI art commercially.
The Ownership Split: Platform Terms vs. Copyright Law
Midjourney’s terms say paid subscribers “own all Assets.” OpenAI grants you rights to outputs.
But the US Copyright Office (January 2025) concluded outputs can only be protected “where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements.” If the AI made the creative decisions – which it does when you type a prompt and hit generate – no federal copyright protection.
Platform “ownership” gives you usage rights. Publish, sell, license commercially. What it doesn’t give: legal power to stop someone else from using an identical image if they generate it with the same tool. Neither of you holds a copyright the law recognizes.
March 2025: D.C. Circuit Court ruled human authorship required. Case involved an AI system creating art autonomously – applicant lost because he listed the machine as author. Courts aren’t recognizing AI as creator.
What ‘Human Authorship’ Means (3 Tested Cases)
The Copyright Office has registered hundreds of works with AI material. Only the human parts get protection.
- Zarya of the Dawn (2023): Comic made with Midjourney images. Partial registration. Text and arrangement copyrighted. AI images? Denied.
- Rose Enigma (2024): Started with human sketch, AI added realistic details. Registered – but only “unaltered human pictorial authorship that is clearly perceptible.”
- Suryast (2023): Rejected. Applicant uploaded a photo, AI applied Van Gogh style. Copyright Office said the AI, not the human, determined how to combine images.
The line? Composition decisions, arranging multiple AI outputs into something new, heavy Photoshop edits – you might have a case. Prompt + pick best of four? You don’t.
“Sufficient human authorship” has no clear threshold. Copyright Office evaluates case-by-case. Two similar processes can get opposite outcomes.
Think of it like building with Lego bricks someone else made. You don’t own the bricks, but if you build something unique with them, maybe you own that arrangement. The Copyright Office is trying to figure out where “snapping bricks together” becomes “creating something new.” Still sorting that out as of early 2026.
Planning to register copyright on work involving AI? Document your process. Screenshots of manual edits, Photoshop layers, before-and-after comparisons. The Copyright Office wants proof you made the expressive choices, not the algorithm.
Three Liability Traps Platforms Don’t Cover
1. The Memorization Problem
AI models train on billions of images scraped from the internet. Sometimes, with the right prompt, they reproduce training images almost exactly. Academic research calls this the “Snoopy Problem” – the model memorizes copyrighted characters or artworks and regenerates them on demand.
You publish an AI image that closely resembles a copyrighted work? You get sued for infringement. Not Midjourney. Not OpenAI. Per their terms, they “disclaim any warranty of noninfringement.” You’re responsible for checking your output doesn’t violate someone else’s copyright.
Real example: Midjourney can generate images that look like Banksy’s style, Disney characters, specific album covers if you prompt it right. Disney and Universal filed a 110-page lawsuit against Midjourney (June 2025), claiming the tool generates copyrighted characters without permission. Had you published one of those images before the lawsuit? You’d be in the crosshairs too.
2. The $1 Million Revenue Trap
Most tutorials skip this: Midjourney’s terms include a corporate revenue clause. Company grosses over $1 million per year? Need Pro or Mega Plan for commercial use – even if you’re not making that revenue.
You’re a freelance designer. Standard plan ($30/month). Client hires you for marketing materials. Client’s company does $5 million annually. Your usage violates the license under Midjourney’s terms. Client needs the Pro plan, or you invoice the work under their account.
Catches graphic designers at agencies. Catches consultants. Midjourney’s enforcement? Unclear. But the risk: contract breach, terminated account, damages if they pursue it.
3. Training Data Lawsuits Hit End Users
Over 60 AI copyright lawsuits active in the US (late 2025). Artists, photographers, publishers suing AI companies for training models on copyrighted works without permission. Some winning.
February 2025: Thomson Reuters won summary judgment against ROSS Intelligence. Court ruled training an AI tool on copyrighted legal headnotes was not fair use. Anthropic settled a class-action for $1.5 billion (2025) – largest copyright payout in US history – after using pirated books for training data.
For you: Courts rule training on copyrighted material requires licenses, those rulings hold? AI platforms face injunctions or forced retraining from scratch. Your access vanishes overnight. Or pricing skyrockets as platforms pass licensing costs to users. No clear timeline. Legal ground is shifting.
How to Use AI Images Without Getting Burned
Publishing AI images commercially – book, product, ad campaign – what reduces risk:
- Add real human input. Don’t stop at generated output. Edit. Combine multiple images. Overlay text or graphics. Modify colors, composition, elements in Photoshop. More creative decisions after generation → stronger copyright claim, less likely the output copies a training image.
- Run reverse image search. Before publishing, use Google Images or TinEye. Check if your AI image closely resembles existing work. Won’t catch everything. Basic filter.
- Check platform terms for your case. Read the fine print. Company revenue exceed Midjourney’s $1M threshold? Using free-tier DALL-E images commercially (you can, per OpenAI’s terms)? Does Stable Diffusion’s open-source license cover your use? Different platforms, different rules.
- Copyright registration matters? Disclose AI use.Copyright Office requires applicants to disclose AI content in applications. Describe which parts are human-authored. Explicitly exclude AI portions “more than de minimis.” Don’t disclose and the Office finds out later? They can cancel your registration – court can disregard it in an infringement case.
When Courts Disagree: The Fair Use Mess
Legal for AI companies to train on copyrighted images without permission? As of early 2026: it depends. Courts split.
Judge William Alsup (Northern District California, June 2025): training large language models on legally purchased books was “important – spectacularly so” and fair use. But downloading pirated books from torrent sites? Not fair use.
A month earlier, Delaware: another judge ruled opposite in Thomson Reuters. Training on copyrighted content not fair use because the resulting tool directly competed with original product.
Different fact patterns – LLMs vs legal research tools, purchased vs pirated data – but the contradiction’s real. Copyright Office’s May 2025 pre-publication punted: “some uses of copyrighted works for generative AI training will qualify as fair use, and some will not.”
Until appellate courts or Supreme Court weigh in? Unsettled. That uncertainty is risk. Building a business on AI content? You’re building on sand that might shift.
The Thing Most Guides Get Backwards
Copyright tutorials love: “You can’t copyright AI art.” Technically true for purely AI work. Misses the real issue.
The question isn’t “can I copyright this image?” It’s: “Who’s liable if this infringes someone else’s copyright, and who’s liable if someone copies mine?”
Platforms give you ownership in terms, don’t protect you. Copyright law might protect you if you add enough human creativity – threshold vague, case-by-case. Your image accidentally reproduces something from training set? You’re the defendant.
Most creators assume platform or law has their back. Neither does.
When NOT to Use AI Images
Risk outweighs convenience:
- High-stakes branding. Logos, brand mascots, packaging. Business depends on exclusive rights to visual identity? AI images are a gamble. Someone else could generate something nearly identical. You can’t stop them.
- Legal evidence or official docs. Authenticity matters – court filings, medical illustrations, technical diagrams for patents – AI images introduce questions about provenance and accuracy you don’t want.
- Client contract requires copyright assignment. Hired to create work, transfer full copyright to client? Can’t deliver that for purely AI images. You don’t have copyright to assign.
- Celebrity likenesses or trademarked characters. Generating an image of a real person (especially public figure) or copyrighted character (Mickey Mouse, Batman)? Liability for right-of-publicity violations and trademark infringement, on top of copyright. Platforms won’t defend you.
What to Do Right Now
Already using AI images commercially? Your checklist:
- Verify you’re on right subscription tier (Midjourney’s $1M revenue rule, confirm OpenAI’s commercial terms, etc.).
- Document any manual edits or creative input you add. Builds your case for copyright if you need to register or defend your work.
- High-value projects? Consider commissioning original human art or licensing stock photography with clear copyright protections. Cost higher. Legal footing solid.
Don’t wait for a lawsuit. Law’s changing in real time. Early 2026 will likely bring more court decisions reshaping these rules. Stay informed, document process, treat platform ownership terms as usage rights – not legal armor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I copyright an image I made with Midjourney if I spent hours refining the prompt?
No. Per the US Copyright Office (January 2025), “the mere provision of prompts” doesn’t qualify as sufficient human authorship – even detailed prompts or significant effort. Prompt engineering is creative, but not the authorship copyright law protects. You’d need to edit the output itself – modify in Photoshop, combine with other elements, integrate into a larger human-created work – to have a case.
If someone copies my AI-generated image, can I sue them?
Probably not successfully. Image generated purely by AI with no significant human modification? You don’t hold a copyright under US law – no legal standing to sue for infringement. Midjourney’s terms might say you “own” it, but that’s a contractual license to use, not a federally recognized copyright giving you power to stop others from copying. Exception: if you substantially modified the AI output and can prove meaningful human authorship, you might register copyright and enforce it – but burden’s on you to demonstrate that contribution. Outcomes case-by-case. The Zarya of the Dawn comic got partial protection for text and arrangement, but the AI images themselves were denied. Your situation might differ depending on how much you edited, but the bar’s high.
Are training data lawsuits going to kill AI image generators?
Unlikely to kill them. Business model could change dramatically. Over 60 lawsuits active in US. Courts split on whether training on copyrighted data qualifies as fair use. Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion (2025) after using pirated books. Getty Images suing Stability AI in UK and US. Disney and Universal sued Midjourney mid-2025. Courts consistently rule against fair use? Platforms need to license training data – higher costs passed to users, or limitations on what models can generate. Some companies (OpenAI) already striking licensing deals with publishers and studios to get ahead of this. Tools won’t disappear. Pricing and capabilities might shift. No final ruling yet. Appeals take years. Legal landscape remains in flux through at least 2026-2027. One thing’s clear: the free-for-all scraping era is ending. What replaces it – complete licensing, opt-in training, hybrid models – still being fought out in courts and Congress.