Who owns what my AI assistant writes or draws?

The government’s copyright and AI work, dated

Copyright and AI have a public record, and it is dated. The Attorney-General's Department keeps the reference group's page, and the Attorney-General's media release of 26 October 2025 gives the government's position. In order:

1. 5 December 2023The former Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus MP, announced the establishment of a Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG) to better prepare for future copyright challenges emerging from AI.
2. Standing mechanismThe CAIRG was established as a standing mechanism to engage with stakeholders across a wide range of sectors on issues at the intersection of AI and copyright. Its initial focus was on the use of copyright material as inputs for AI systems, and on copyright-related AI transparency issues.
3. May 2024Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire as part of an exploratory mapping exercise on uses of copyright material as AI inputs, seeking views on what objectives Australia should aim to achieve where its copyright framework intersects with the development, deployment and use of AI technology.
4. September 2024Participants were asked to respond to a discussion paper on copyright and AI transparency issues, seeking views on whether there are specific copyright-related transparency issues where the government should consider urgent action.
5. 26 October 2025The media release records the government's position: it is consulting on possible updates to Australia's copyright laws while reiterating that this will not include a Text and Data Mining Exception. The release sets out what was ruled out: some in the technology sector had called for a broad Text and Data Mining Exception, under which AI developers would be able to use the works of Australian creators for free and without permission to train AI systems. It gives the reason: the government stands behind Australia's creative industries and, by ruling out the exception, is providing certainty to Australian creators. The Attorney-General is quoted in it: “This Government has repeatedly said that there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI.”
6. 28 October 2025The Department hosted a CAIRG meeting to discuss 3 priority areas in copyright and AI policy, and as highlighted in the media release of 26 October 2025, these are the 3 priority areas the government asked the group to explore: encouraging fair, legal avenues for using copyright material in AI through examination of licensing arrangements; improving certainty on the application of copyright law to material generated through the use of AI; and exploring avenues for less costly enforcement in relation to AI outputs-related infringement, including through a potential small claims forum. It confirmed that a consultation paper would be circulated to participants soon after the meeting, seeking written feedback on the 3 priority areas. The Department also noted that the government is not considering a text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law.

What the timeline shows: the government has ruled out the exception that would have let AI systems train on Australian works without permission, and has asked the reference group to look at licensing, certainty and enforcement.

Why copyright needs a human author

One part of the question is older than the tools. IP Australia's guidance says copyright protection for many types of works requires a human author, and the extent that someone has used AI as a tool can raise complex questions about whether copyright protection applies to what they have created. Its companion line asks the question at the right moment: AI tools can create pictures, text, music, video and other outputs, and if copyright protection is important to you, consider whether using generative AI tools affects that protection.

The two questions on this page are separate, and it helps to keep them apart. Whether copyright exists in the output at all is the human-author question, and it is a question for copyright law, not for a provider’s terms. Who owns the output, and what the provider may do with it, is the contract question, and the next section is about that one.

What the provider’s terms say

There are many AI tools currently available, and each has different terms and conditions, all of which remain subject to law. IP Australia's instruction is to ensure that you familiarise yourself with the terms and conditions of your chosen tool to understand who owns the IP of the created works.

The range is wide: some providers may state that you own the result, while others may claim to retain broad rights to store or reuse it. So read the terms: they set out what the provider claims, and they remain subject to law.

A logo an assistant drew

A logo an assistant drew is the ordinary case, and it is checked in two steps, in this order.

The first step is the terms. Before using an AI-generated logo or design in your business, IP Australia says it is important to review the tool's terms regarding ownership and commercial use. That is where the provider sets out its position on ownership and commercial use, in the same document this page has already sent you to.

The second step is a search, because a generated logo can collide with something that already exists: a logo, brand name, written work or design created using AI may look like someone else's without you realising, and it may be worth checking whether any proposed name or logo is already used or registered as a trade mark. IP Australia provides a free online tool for that part, TM Checker, which lets you check the registrability of a potential trade mark. The tool is described, and linked, on IP Australia's considerations page. It checks registrability, not ownership.

Keeping a record of your own part

The practical step the guidance gives for the human-author question is a record. If IP protection more broadly is important to you, it may be beneficial to keep notes about what you planned, the prompts that you used, and what you chose or edited yourself, so you can clearly distinguish between what you created and what the AI model created.

That record speaks to the earlier question: the extent that you have used AI as a tool can raise complex questions about whether copyright protection applies to what you have created.