As of March 31, 2026, the criteria for recognizing copyright in generative artificial intelligence (AI) outputs and the methods for securing training data have been reshaped through official documents from regulatory agencies in various countries and contracts between corporations.
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and South Korean regulatory authorities maintain their principle of not recognizing copyright for prompt-only outputs, while the European Union (EU) is implementing data transparency obligations for general-purpose models under the AI Act.
Major global tech companies are entering into large-scale official licensing contracts with media outlets and platforms to avoid litigation risks related to unauthorized data training.
This in-depth analysis examines the current state of AI copyright and data markets based on national legislation, government policy statements, court rulings, and corporate disclosure materials.
Textual Limitations of Domestic Copyright Act and Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism's AI Guidelines
Article 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act of the Republic of Korea defines a copyrighted work as "a creative work expressing human thoughts or emotions." Consequently, it is the general interpretation that results created entirely by non-human entities do not fall within the scope of copyrighted works under the text of the law.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Copyright Commission of Korea released the "Generative AI Copyright Guidelines" in December 2023 and published the guidelines as a Korea Copyright Commission publication in January 2024. Through this official guide, practical reference guidelines were presented.
The guidelines specify that results automatically produced by generative AI without human creative intervention are, in principle, not considered copyrighted works, and copyright registration is not permitted. They also state that when applying for registration, applicants must disclose in the application if AI-generated content is included.
Only in cases where a human uses AI outputs as a basic material and applies substantial modifications, additions, or deletions can they be recognized as a separate copyrighted work. Since then, case-by-case Q&As and additional guidance have accumulated during the registration review process for AI-utilized works, but the basic principle that "human creative intervention is essential" remains maintained.