UK AI Copyright Laws: CDPA s.9(3) and What It Covers
The United Kingdom holds a rare distinction in global copyright law: under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), the UK can grant copyright protection to works generated entirely by a computer, with no human author required. Most major economies offer no equivalent route.
Information last verified on 2026-06-25. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice. UK policy on AI and copyright is under active review.
Scope: This article covers United Kingdom copyright law as it applies to AI-generated output, AI training and text-and-data mining, and software protection under the CDPA 1988. For a global comparison, see how AI and copyright differ worldwide.
Computer-Generated Works: The Section 9(3) Route
The UK is unusual among major economies in providing a statutory path to copyright protection for works generated by a computer without a human author. Under section 9(3) of the CDPA 1988, the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work is "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." Section 178 of the CDPA defines "computer-generated" as a work generated by computer in circumstances where there is no human author.
This means that if a developer, business, or individual sets up and runs the system that produces the work, they may qualify as the statutory author. The protection exists independently of any creative contribution by a human to the final output, at least on the face of the statute.
The term of protection is shorter than for human-authored works. Under section 12(7) CDPA, a computer-generated work is protected for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made. Standard works authored by a natural person attract the EU-legacy life-plus-70-year term.
Tension with the Originality Standard
Section 9(3) was drafted in the 1980s with automated database generation in mind, long before modern generative AI. Applying it to large language models and image generators raises a question the statute does not resolve: does prompting an AI system constitute "making the arrangements necessary" for the work?
No UK court has ruled directly on whether a prompt is sufficient arrangement. The question is further complicated by the originality standard the UK now applies. Following Brexit, the Court of Appeal confirmed in THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 that the UK requires an "author's own intellectual creation" for a work to qualify as original, a test imported from EU case law before the UK's departure. This standard is difficult to satisfy where no human exercises intellectual judgment over the form of the output.
The result is a structural tension: s.9(3) provides a mechanism for authorship without a human, but the originality requirement may demand a human intellectual contribution the prompt alone cannot supply. Until a UK court addresses a generative-AI case directly, this tension remains unresolved.
Text-and-Data Mining for AI Training
Training a generative AI model typically requires copying large volumes of third-party text, images, or audio to extract patterns. Under UK copyright law, that copying is potentially infringing unless a licence or exception applies.
Section 29A of the CDPA permits text-and-data mining (TDM), but only within strict limits:
| Factor | Current UK position (June 2026) |
|---|---|
| Who may mine? | Any person with lawful access to the work |
| Permitted purpose | Non-commercial research only |
| Commercial TDM | Not permitted without a licence |
| Opt-out mechanism | No statutory opt-out regime in force |
Commercial AI developers training on publicly available web content cannot rely on s.29A. They require either a licence from rights holders or must argue that their activity falls within some other exception, none of which straightforwardly covers commercial model training at scale.
The Reform Process: 2022 to 2026
The current restriction on commercial TDM has been the subject of sustained policy debate. A proposed broad TDM exception announced in 2022 was shelved after industry opposition from creative sectors. A government consultation running from December 2024 to February 2025 floated an opt-out model, under which rights holders could reserve their works from AI training through a machine-readable signal, while permitting training by default where no opt-out was lodged.
A government report in March 2026 stepped back from the opt-out as its preferred approach, reflecting the difficulty of reconciling the interests of AI developers and creative industries. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, at sections 135 to 137, imposed new transparency and reporting duties on AI developers relating to training data, but it did not amend copyright law or create a commercial TDM exception.
As of June 2026, no legislation has been enacted to change the TDM position. Commercial model training without a rights-holder licence remains legally uncertain at best.
Software Protection
AI systems are themselves software, and copyright protection for the underlying code is straightforward under UK law. Section 3(1) of the CDPA classifies computer programs as literary works, giving them the same protection as any text. This covers source code, object code, and preparatory design material.
Protecting an AI model as software is therefore well established. The harder questions concern the outputs the model produces, addressed above, and the training data that shaped its weights, addressed in the TDM section.
How the UK Differs from the United States
The UK and the US represent contrasting positions on AI-generated copyright:
| Issue | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Can AI output attract copyright? | Yes, via s.9(3) CDPA (person who arranges the work is the statutory author) | No: the US Copyright Office and courts require human authorship; purely AI-generated works are not protected |
| Term for AI-generated works | 50 years from creation (s.12(7) CDPA) | No protection |
| Commercial TDM exception | No exception in force | No equivalent statutory TDM exception; fair use analysis applies case by case |
| Reform trajectory | Active but inconclusive consultation process | Agency guidance and litigation-driven; no federal legislation enacted |
The UK's s.9(3) route is the most significant difference. A business that builds and operates a generative AI system in the UK has at least a statutory basis to claim authorship of outputs. In the US, no equivalent exists, and copyright in AI-generated content is denied on the face of Copyright Office policy.
This article presents general legal information about UK copyright law and AI. It is not legal advice. The law in this area is developing quickly. If you need advice on your specific situation, consult a UK-qualified solicitor. Information current as of 2026-06-25.
Related articles
- How AI and copyright differ worldwide
- AI copyright law in the United States
- European Union AI copyright laws
- Australia AI copyright laws
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can AI-generated content be protected by copyright in the UK?
Possibly, through the specific route in section 9(3) of the CDPA 1988. The person who makes the arrangements necessary for the creation of a computer-generated work is treated as the statutory author. However, the 'author's own intellectual creation' originality standard may also apply, and no UK court has yet ruled on whether a prompt satisfies that standard for modern generative AI output. The position is legally uncertain.
How long does copyright last for AI-generated works in the UK?
Under section 12(7) of the CDPA 1988, a computer-generated work is protected for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made. This is shorter than the standard term for human-authored works, which lasts for the author's life plus 70 years.
Can AI companies train their models on copyrighted material in the UK?
Not without a licence if the purpose is commercial. Section 29A of the CDPA permits text-and-data mining only for non-commercial research by a person with lawful access to the material. There is no commercial TDM exception in force as of June 2026, despite several years of government consultations on the topic.
What did the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 change about AI copyright?
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, at sections 135 to 137, introduced reporting and transparency duties for AI developers concerning their training data. It did not create a commercial TDM exception or otherwise amend the copyright provisions of the CDPA 1988.
Is the UK planning to introduce a commercial text-and-data mining exception?
The government has been consulting on the question since 2022 without reaching a legislative outcome. A broad TDM exception was proposed in 2022 then shelved. A December 2024 to February 2025 consultation proposed an opt-out model. A March 2026 government report stepped back from that approach. As of June 2026, no commercial exception exists and no legislation is imminent.
How does the UK approach to AI copyright compare with the EU?
The EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market introduced a commercial TDM exception for AI training, subject to an opt-out for rights holders. The UK, post-Brexit, did not implement that directive. The UK retains the non-commercial-only restriction under s.29A CDPA and has not enacted a comparable commercial exception, leaving UK and EU law on this point diverged.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
s. 12Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.In force
(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. (2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows. (3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires— (a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or (b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available, subject as follows. (4) Subsection (2) applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3). (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) making available to the public includes— (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work— (i) performance in public, or (ii) communication to the public; (b) in the case of an artistic work— (i) exhibition in public, (ii) a film including the work being shown in public, or (iii) communication to the public;
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.gov.uk
s. 178Minor definitions.In force
In this Part— “article”, in the context of an article in a periodical, includes an item of any description; “business”includes a trade or profession; “ collective work ” means— a work of joint authorship, or a work in which there are distinct contributions by different authors or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated; “ computer-generated ”, in relation to a work, means that the work is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work; “country” includes any territory; “the Crown” includes the Crown in right of the Scottish Administration , of the Welsh Assembly Government or of Her Majesty’s Government in Northern Ireland or in any country outside the United Kingdom to which this Part extends; “ electronic ” means actuated by electric, magnetic, electro-mechanical energy, and “ in electronic form ” means in a form usable only by electronic means; “employed”, “employee”, “employer”, and “employment” refer to employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship; “facsimile copy” includes a copy which is reduced or enlarged in scale;
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.gov.uk
s. 29aCopies for text and data analysis for non-commercial researchIn force
(1) The making of a copy of a work by a person who has lawful access to the work does not infringe copyright in the work provided that— (a) the copy is made in order that a person who has lawful access to the work may carry out a computational analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose, and (b) the copy is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement (unless this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise). (2) Where a copy of a work has been made under this section, copyright in the work is infringed if— (a) the copy is transferred to any other person, except where the transfer is authorised by the copyright owner, or (b) the copy is used for any purpose other than that mentioned in subsection (1)(a), except where the use is authorised by the copyright owner. (3) If a copy made under this section is subsequently dealt with— (a) it is to be treated as an infringing copy for the purposes of that dealing, and (b) if that dealing infringes copyright, it is to be treated as an infringing copy for all subsequent purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.gov.uk
s. 3Literary, dramatic and musical works.In force
(1) In this Part— “ literary work ” means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes— a table or compilation other than a database , ... a computer program, ... preparatory design material for a computer program , and a database ; “ dramatic work ” includes a work of dance or mime; and “ musical work ” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. (2) Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded. (3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.gov.uk
s. 9Authorship of work.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) In this Part “ author ”, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it. (2) That person shall be taken to be— (aa) in the case of a sound recording, the producer; (ab) in the case of a film, the producer and the principal director; (b) in the case of a broadcast, the person making the broadcast (see section 6(3)) or, in the case of a broadcast which relays another broadcast by reception and immediate re-transmission, the person making that other broadcast; (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) in the case of the typographical arrangement of a published edition, the publisher. (3) In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. (4) For the purposes of this Part a work is of “ unknown authorship ” if the identity of the author is unknown or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, if the identity of none of the authors is known.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.gov.uk
Also relied on in: AI Copyright Laws by Country: 2026 Global Guide
Search our record of UK legislation — retrieved from legislation.gov.uk →
Sources and References
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.9(3)(legislation.gov.uk).gov
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.178 (computer-generated)(legislation.gov.uk).gov
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.12(7) (term)(legislation.gov.uk).gov
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.29A (text and data mining)(legislation.gov.uk).gov
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.3 (literary works)(legislation.gov.uk).gov
- UK Government, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence consultation (2024)(gov.uk)
- Data (Use and Access) Act 2025(legislation.gov.uk).gov