Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I’m just sharing this because I found it insightful.
The author describes himself as a “fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.
You obviously didn’t even glance at the case law. No one can own what AI produces. It is inherently public domain.
The statement that “No one can own what AI produces. It is inherently public domain” is partially true, but the situation is more nuanced, especially in the United States.
Here is a breakdown of the key points:
Human Authorship is Required: In the U.S., copyright law fundamentally requires a human author. Works generated entirely by an AI, without sufficient creative input or control from a human, are not eligible for copyright protection and thus fall into the public domain.
“Sufficient” Human Input Matters: If a human uses AI as an assistive tool but provides significant creative control, selection, arrangement, or modification to the final product, the human’s contributions may be copyrightable. The U.S. Copyright Office determines the “sufficiency” of human input on a case-by-case basis.
Prompts Alone Are Generally Insufficient: Merely providing a text prompt to an AI tool, even a detailed one, typically does not qualify as sufficient human authorship to copyright the output.
International Variations: The U.S. stance is not universal. Some other jurisdictions, such as the UK and China, have legal frameworks that may allow for copyright in “computer-generated works” under certain conditions, such as designating the person who made the “necessary arrangements” as the author.
In summary, purely AI-generated content generally lacks copyright protection in the U.S. and is in the public domain. However, content where a human significantly shapes the creative expression may be copyrightable, though the AI-generated portions alone remain unprotectable.
To help you understand the practical application, I can explain the specific requirements for copyrighting a work that uses both human creativity and AI assistance. Would you like me to outline the specific criteria the U.S. Copyright Office uses to evaluate “sufficient” human authorship for a project you have in mind?
Use at your own risk, AI can make mistakes, but in this case it agrees 100% with my prior understanding.