The U.S. Copyright Office says copyright belongs to the human author — but it can’t tell you exactly where the human ends and artificial intelligence (AI) begins. In 2025, that’s not just a technical gap. It’s a creative and legal problem affecting writers, artists, designers, and anyone using generative AI to make something real.
Why AI Authorship Is Being Questioned
The debate over AI-generated content often assumes there’s a clean divide between human work and machine work. If you typed it, it’s yours. If the AI did, it’s not.
But real creative work doesn’t fit into those boxes.
In Aithorship, I argue that the real line isn’t between human and machine — it’s between presence and absence:
- Were you there when the work took shape?
- Did you make the decisions that gave it meaning?
- Would it exist in this form without you?
If the answer is yes, that’s authorship. Even if a machine was part of the process.
What Is
Aithorship?
Aithorship is a term I use to describe authorship that emerges from sustained, creative interaction with generative AI. It begins with human intent, builds through prompts and responses, and is shaped through judgment — knowing when something resonates, when it falls flat, and when it’s complete.
This isn’t “one-prompt” automation.
It’s an iterative process where the final work is built outside the AI session — through editing, restructuring, and the author’s own sense of when it’s ready.
Why This Matters Now
Generative AI is no longer a niche tool. It’s built into the platforms we use every day:
- Autocomplete in emails
- AI-assisted design in creative software
- Code completion for developers
If every AI intervention casts doubt on authorship, we risk undermining ownership across industries. Writers, artists, marketers, engineers, and even small business owners could lose recognition for work they actually shaped.
The Case for Protecting AI-Assisted Creators
Authorship has never required total control. Painters don’t control every bristle of the brush. Photographers don’t control the clouds. Jazz musicians don’t plan every note. We still call them the authors of their work because they were present when it mattered.
The U.S. Copyright Office already acknowledges that AI-assisted works can be protected — but it stops short of telling creators how much human is enough or what exactly counts as human contribution.
Without clear criteria, authorship in AI-assisted work becomes a guessing game. The risk is real: creators who shaped, curated, and finished a work can still lose protection simply because the rules don’t recognize how that shaping happened.
What we need isn’t a looser definition — it’s a sharper one. One that identifies:
- Which creative decisions are meaningfully human.
- How those decisions can be documented and demonstrated.
- When the human presence is substantial enough to make the work theirs.
Until that clarity exists, every AI-assisted creator is working without a safety net.
Decide Where You Stand
Aithorship is both a personal account and a practical blueprint for creators, publishers, and policymakers. It calls for a new definition of authorship — one that reflects how creative work actually happens now.
Read it, share it, and decide where you draw the line.