{"id":3112,"date":"2026-10-28T09:34:29","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T09:34:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/?p=3112"},"modified":"2026-10-28T09:34:44","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T09:34:44","slug":"ai-assisted-content-copyright-poland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/ai-assisted-content-copyright-poland\/","title":{"rendered":"Copyright in AI-Assisted Content: What Businesses Operating in Poland Need to Know"},"content":{"rendered":"

Copyright in AI-Assisted Content: What Businesses Operating in Poland Need to Know<\/h1>\n

Nearly 20% of EU enterprises<\/strong> use AI tools, and almost 9.5%<\/strong> use them to generate images, video, or audio, according to Eurostat<\/a>. In Poland, the share of companies using AI is lower\u20148.36%<\/strong>\u2014but is growing. So is the volume of marketing, product, and brand material created with generative AI.<\/p>\n

A significant share of those assets may have no copyright protection<\/strong> in Poland, the EU, or the US.<\/p>\n

A widely shared headline claimed that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) had registered an AI-generated image. That is not what happened. The distinction matters if your business operates in Poland, commissions creative work there, or needs to demonstrate the value of its IP portfolio to an investor or buyer.<\/p>\n

This article explains what the USCO decided in the \u201cAmerican Cheese\u201d matter, what Polish copyright law requires, and how to assess and document your company\u2019s rights in AI-assisted content<\/a> before an IP audit or due diligence review.<\/p>\n

Key terms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nMeaning<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
USCO<\/strong><\/td>\nThe U.S. Copyright Office, which handles copyright registration applications and refusals.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Work under Polish copyright law<\/strong><\/td>\nUnder Article 1(1) of Poland\u2019s Copyright and Related Rights Act, a manifestation of creative activity of an individual nature, established in any form.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Human authorship requirement<\/strong><\/td>\nThe principle applied by the USCO that copyright protection extends to a person\u2019s creative contribution, not to material generated solely by AI.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inpainting<\/strong><\/td>\nModifying selected parts of an image\u2014for example, painting over, retouching, or replacing elements. In an AI-assisted workflow, it can help show where human intervention occurred.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Selection and arrangement<\/strong><\/td>\nUnder US copyright law, a person\u2019s creative choice and organization of elements may be protected even when the elements themselves are not.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AI Act<\/strong><\/td>\nEU Regulation 2024\/1689, which regulates AI systems and their use but does not create copyright protection for AI outputs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IP due diligence<\/strong><\/td>\nA review of intellectual property rights, often conducted before an investment, funding round, or M&A transaction.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

What the USCO decided in the \u201cAmerican Cheese\u201d matter<\/h2>\n

The USCO did not register an AI-generated image as such<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In the \u201cA Single Piece of American Cheese\u201d matter, the applicant assembled a collage using AI-generated elements and inpainting. He modified parts of the image, chose its composition, and determined how the elements were arranged. The USCO registered only his selection and arrangement<\/strong>. It expressly excluded the AI-generated elements from the registration.<\/p>\n

That distinction is consistent with the USCO\u2019s earlier approach. In Kristina Kashtanova\u2019s comic Zarya of the Dawn<\/em>, the text and the selection and arrangement of images received protection; the images generated using Midjourney did not. Kashtanova\u2019s disclosure on social media that AI had been used prompted the USCO to review the registration.<\/p>\n

In Thaler v. Perlmutter<\/em> (No. 22-cv-01564, D.D.C., August 18, 2023), a court upheld a refusal to register and stated that \u201chuman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.\u201d The district court decision is available through the USCO<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The practical point is that entering a prompt and clicking \u201cgenerate\u201d does not, by itself, make the user the author of the resulting material. Protection may arise from a genuine human creative contribution\u2014but its scope is limited to that contribution.<\/p>\n

What Polish copyright law requires<\/h2>\n

Poland\u2019s Act of February 4, 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights defines a work as \u201cany manifestation of creative activity of an individual nature, established in any form\u201d (Article 1(1); Polish Copyright Act, ISAP<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The requirements operate together: creative activity, individual character, and establishment in a form<\/strong>. On the interpretive position described in materials published by Poland\u2019s National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR)<\/a>, material created exclusively by AI does not meet the first requirement because it is not a manifestation of human creative activity.<\/p>\n

For a business, the distinction may look like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Asset or workflow<\/th>\nLikely position under the approach described above<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
An image produced from a prompt with no further intervention<\/td>\nProbably not protected:<\/strong> no human creative activity is apparent.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A collage of AI-generated elements independently selected, arranged, and modified by a person<\/td>\nPotentially protected<\/strong> to the extent of the person\u2019s creative selection, composition, or retouching.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AI-generated text creatively edited and restructured by a person<\/td>\nPotentially protected<\/strong> to the extent of that creative editing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A company logo generated entirely by AI<\/td>\nProbably not protected by copyright<\/strong>\u2014a particularly significant risk for a core brand asset.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

There is no binding Polish judgment establishing the minimum human contribution<\/strong> needed for copyright protection in an AI-assisted work. That uncertainty should not be mistaken for an absence of risk. It makes both the creative process and the evidence of that process important.<\/p>\n

USCO decisions do not bind Polish courts. They are useful examples of how one authority distinguishes a human contribution from generated material, not a substitute for assessing the asset under Polish law.<\/p>\n

The EU AI Act does not create copyright in AI outputs<\/h2>\n

The EU\u2019s AI Act does not decide who authored an AI-generated asset or grant that asset copyright protection. The approved source identifies Article 2(5) and Recital 107 of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689<\/a> as preserving the operation and enforcement of EU copyright rules.<\/p>\n

The Act does, however, impose transparency obligations on providers and deployers of AI systems<\/a>. The Article 50 obligations discussed here apply from August 2, 2026<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Obligation<\/th>\nWho it concerns<\/th>\nDate<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Marking synthetic AI outputs in a machine-readable format<\/td>\nProviders of AI systems that generate synthetic content<\/td>\nAugust 2, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Disclosing deepfake content<\/td>\nDeployers of AI systems<\/td>\nAugust 2, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Providing information about interaction with AI<\/td>\nProviders of AI systems intended to interact directly with individuals<\/td>\nAugust 2, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Manually adding \u201cgenerated by AI\u201d is not specified as sufficient for the machine-readable marking obligation. The requirement concerns technical measures such as watermarks, metadata, and cryptographic methods.<\/p>\n

The source also notes an exception to the disclosure obligation for AI-generated text where the content has undergone human review or editorial control<\/strong> and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for its publication. That is a separate rule from copyright: editorial review for an AI Act disclosure exception does not, by itself, establish copyright protection.<\/p>\n

The source identifies no confirmed Court of Justice of the European Union judgment from 2024\u20132026 resolving authorship or protection of an AI-generated work. To assess whether the AI Act\u2019s obligations apply to a particular tool or workflow, it is also necessary to understand what qualifies as an AI system under the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tool terms govern use; they do not create copyright<\/h2>\n

A provider\u2019s statement that a user \u201cowns\u201d an output is not the same as a finding that the output is a copyright-protected work under Polish law.<\/p>\n