Copyright and AI Images: What You Can Legally Use in 2026, and What You Can't

This article is general information, not legal advice, and rules differ from country to country and keep evolving. But following an important decision from the US Supreme Court in March 2026, we now have a clearer picture of where AI images stand legally, especially in the US market that many platforms and creators worldwide tend to follow.

What Changed in March 2026?

On March 2, 2026, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, a years-long case over researcher Stephen Thaler's attempt to register copyright for artwork produced entirely autonomously by an AI system, with no human involvement at all. By declining to hear it, the Court left standing an earlier appeals court ruling affirming that US copyright law requires a "human author," meaning works produced fully automatically by AI, with no genuine human creative contribution, cannot be registered as copyrighted works.

Does This Mean Every AI Image Has No Copyright?

No, and the distinction here is subtle but important. The ruling specifically concerns works produced "entirely" by AI with no genuine human creative decision-making — like writing a simple prompt, pressing generate, and taking the first result. But if your creative contribution is substantial and clear — selecting and arranging multiple elements, substantially editing the resulting image, combining several images in a deliberate artistic arrangement, or refining the prompt dozens of times to achieve a specific artistic vision — there may still be room for partial protection, and the US Copyright Office evaluates these cases individually.

Can You Use the Images Commercially Even Without Copyright?

Yes, and this point is often misunderstood. Not being able to register copyright for the image doesn't stop you from selling it or using it commercially. Commercial use depends on the tool's own terms of service, not on copyright status. Many major tools — like Midjourney for paying subscribers, Google Gemini, and ChatGPT — explicitly grant you personal and commercial usage rights to the images you generate under their terms. The real problem shows up if someone else copies your image and uses it without permission: since it isn't protected by traditional copyright, your legal recourse may be weaker compared to a fully original human-made work.

A Completely Different Issue: Training Data

Don't confuse "can the resulting image be protected by copyright" with a completely separate question: "was training the model itself on copyrighted images legal in the first place?" High-profile lawsuits like Getty Images v. Stability AI are still ongoing specifically on that point, and may eventually affect some tools' terms of use, but they don't by themselves change the status of the image you generate today.

Outside the US: The EU and the UK

The US ruling doesn't apply directly outside the United States. In the EU, works generally need significant human creative input to qualify for protection, with differences in the details between member states. In the UK, the text-and-data-mining exception can't be relied on to train commercial models on copyrighted works without an appropriate license. If you're working with an audience or clients outside the US market, it's better to check that country's specific rules rather than assume the US rule applies globally.

Practical Steps to Protect Yourself

Document your actual creative contribution if it's substantial (how many times you refined the prompt, manual editing steps, combining multiple elements) instead of relying only on the final output • Check the tool's terms of use specifically regarding commercial use and resale before relying on it for a commercial project • Avoid generating images featuring famous people, trademarks, or an art style extremely close to a specific known artist, since that's a completely separate risk from basic copyright and relates to publicity rights and trademark law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can anyone else copy my AI-generated image without consequences?

Generally, if the image isn't protected by traditional copyright, it's hard to prevent copying based specifically on copyright law. But other protections may still apply if there's a violation of the tool's own terms of use, or if you've documented enough creative contribution to make the work eligible for protection in the first place.

Could this law change in the future?

Yes. The Supreme Court declining to hear this case doesn't prevent it from considering similar cases later, and other pending cases (such as one involving hundreds of prompts used to refine a single image) may draw clearer lines around how much human contribution is required. It's worth following developments rather than treating the current situation as final.

Conclusion

An image you generate with a simple prompt and an instant result isn't registrable as traditional copyright in the US as of March 2026, but that doesn't stop you from using it commercially under the tool's terms, and it doesn't necessarily mean the same rule applies in every country. If your work relies heavily on AI images, document your genuine creative contribution, and regularly review the terms of the tool you use, since those can change too.