Artificial Intelligence & Copyright Law In Canada: What Creators & Businesses Need To Know

Artificial intelligence ("AI") has rapidly transformed the way businesses, creators, and professionals develop content. From generating written works and artwork to composing music, creating audiovisual content and assisting with software development, generative AI has become an increasingly common tool across virtually every industry.

While these technologies create exciting opportunities for innovation and efficiency, they also raise complex legal questions concerning copyright ownership, authorship, licensing, infringement, training data and the commercialization of AI-generated content.

Canadian copyright law continues to adapt to these technological developments. Many fundamental questions, including whether and to what extent purely AI-generated material may attract copyright protection, remain unsettled.

For creators and businesses, this uncertainty makes it increasingly important to understand not only what AI can create, but also who may own the resulting content, what material can lawfully be used with AI systems and what risks may arise when AI-generated content is commercialized.

What Is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection governed primarily by Canada's federal Copyright Act.

The Copyright Act protects qualifying original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. It also provides separate protections for certain other subject matter, including performers' performances, sound recordings and communication signals.

Examples of works that may qualify for copyright protection include:

• books and articles;

• photographs;

• paintings and illustrations;

• films and other audiovisual works;

• architectural works;

• musical compositions and lyrics;

• software and computer programs;

• sound recordings;

• sculptures; and

• choreography and other qualifying dramatic works.

Copyright generally gives the copyright owner certain exclusive rights in relation to a protected work, subject to the Copyright Act and applicable exceptions.

These can include rights relating to reproduction, publication, performance, communication to the public and other uses depending on the nature of the work.

Copyright law therefore allows rights holders to exercise significant control over the exploitation of protected works while balancing those rights against statutory exceptions and other public-interest considerations.

Generative AI presents new challenges because copyright law developed around concepts such as authors, original expression, ownership and human creativity long before today's generative AI technologies existed.

AI & Canadian Copyright Law

Canada's Copyright Act does not presently contain a comprehensive legal framework specifically addressing generative AI. This has created uncertainty concerning how established copyright principles apply when AI plays a substantial or potentially exclusive role in creating content.

Canadian copyright jurisprudence has traditionally assessed originality by considering whether a work originates from an author and involves an exercise of skill and judgment that is more than merely mechanical or trivial.

Applying established copyright principles to generative AI raises a fundamental question: Can material generated entirely by an AI system qualify as a copyright-protected work under Canadian law, and if so, who is its author?

Canadian courts have not yet provided a definitive general answer to that question.

Canada's Copyright Act was enacted long before the emergence of modern generative AI and does not expressly establish a general authorship or ownership regime specifically for works generated using AI.

Accordingly, creators and businesses should be cautious about assuming either that AI-generated content is automatically protected by copyright or that it can never attract copyright protection.

Canada's Consultation On Copyright & Generative AI

Recognizing the significant policy questions created by generative AI, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (“ISED”) conducted its Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence. The Government subsequently published a report summarizing the feedback received.

The consultation considered issues including:

• text and data mining;

• authorship and ownership of works generated by AI;

• infringement and liability involving AI-generated works; and

• the broader impact of generative AI on Canada's creative industries and copyright framework.

The Government of Canada continues to consider whether and how concerns associated with generative AI should be addressed through Canada's copyright framework or related policy measures.

At the time of publication, these policy initiatives have not resulted in a comprehensive amendment to the Copyright Act establishing a specific copyright regime for generative AI. The legal landscape therefore remains developing.

Canada's broader AI regulatory and policy environment also continues to evolve. In July 2026, the federal government launched a public consultation on AI transparency, including issues relating to identifying AI-generated content and helping Canadians understand when they are interacting with AI systems. That consultation is scheduled to remain open until September 23, 2026.

Who Owns AI-Generated Content?

One of the most important questions for creators and businesses is also one of the most difficult: Does copyright subsist in AI-generated or AI-assisted content, and if so, who owns it?

These are distinct questions. Before determining ownership, it is necessary to consider whether copyright subsists in the material at all. The answer may depend significantly on the circumstances of the content and the nature and extent of the human contribution.

Consider two different scenarios:

In the first, a graphic designer develops an original concept, uses an AI tool to generate preliminary elements, selects and arranges particular material and then substantially edits, modifies and integrates those elements into a larger original design.

In the second, an individual enters a short prompt into an AI platform and accepts the resulting image without further creative involvement.

These scenarios may raise materially different copyright questions.

Canadian law has not established a simple threshold specifying how much human involvement is necessary for copyright to subsist in an AI-assisted work.

For businesses relying on commercially valuable AI-assisted content, the degree of human creative contribution should therefore be carefully considered and documented.

AI-Assisted vs. AI-Generated Content

For practical purposes, it can be useful to distinguish between AI-assisted and AI-generated content, although these are not formal statutory categories under Canada's Copyright Act.

An AI-assisted work may involve substantial human creative input, with AI being used as one tool within a broader creative process.

Examples may include:

• using AI to brainstorm concepts before independently writing an article;

• using AI as an editing or proofreading tool;

• generating preliminary design concepts that are subsequently substantially modified by a designer;

• using AI-assisted software development tools followed by meaningful human coding and revision; or

• using AI-generated material as one component of a larger human-created work.

By contrast, AI-generated content may involve substantially less human creative involvement. For example, where an individual provides a simple prompt and the AI system generates the resulting content with little or no subsequent human modification.

The distinction may matter because Canadian copyright law's originality analysis has traditionally focused on the author's exercise of skill and judgment. However, Canadian courts have not established a definitive legal test specifically distinguishing AI-assisted from AI-generated works.

Businesses should therefore avoid treating these descriptions as settled legal categories.

The Approach In The U.S.

The approach taken in other jurisdictions can provide useful context, but Canadian businesses should be careful not to assume that foreign copyright rules automatically apply in Canada.

For example, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) has taken the position that U.S. copyright protection requires human authorship and has developed guidance concerning works containing material generated by AI.

That approach can be relevant to Canadian creators and businesses seeking protection or commercializing content in the United States. However, the USCO guidance does not determine Canadian copyright law.

The Canadian analysis must ultimately be based on Canada's Copyright Act and Canadian jurisprudence unless Parliament introduces new legislation.

Copyright-Protected Works Used to Train AI Systems

One of the most significant legal controversies surrounding generative AI concerns the material used to develop and train AI models.

AI systems can be trained using enormous quantities of data and content. Depending on the system and dataset, that material may include copyrighted books, news articles, photographs, artwork, software code, music and other protected content.

This has generated significant debate between rights holders and AI developers.

Creators, publishers and other rights holders have raised concerns that copyrighted works may be copied or otherwise used in connection with AI training without authorization or compensation.

Technology companies and other stakeholders have advanced different legal and policy positions concerning how copyright law should apply to text and data mining and AI training. Canada's federal consultation expressly considered text and data mining as one of the principle copyright issues raised by generative AI.

Under current Canadian law, there is no broad AI-specific text-and-data-mining exception expressly resolving all such uses.

Whether particular acts of reproduction or other copyright-restricted activities undertaken in connection with AI training constitute copyright infringement, fall within an existing statutory exception, are authorized by licence or otherwise comply with Canadian copyright law will depend on the particular facts and legal issues involved.

Canadian Litigation Involving OpenAI

Canada has already begun to see litigation involving AI and copyright.

Several major Canadian news organizations, including the Toronto Star, CBC/Radio-Canada, The Globe and Mail, The Canadian Press, and Postmedia have commenced legal proceedings against OpenAI alleging, among other things, unauthorized use of their copyrighted news content in connection with the development of OpenAI's AI systems.

The plaintiffs have advanced copyright and related allegations. OpenAI disputes the claims.

Importantly, these allegations have not been finally determined on their merits.

In 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed OpenAI's jurisdictional challenge, permitting the proceeding to continue in Ontario. That jurisdictional determination did not decide the underlying copyright allegations on their merits.

The litigation may ultimately provide important Canadian judicial guidance concerning the interaction between copyright law, AI training and generative AI technologies.

Until the substantive issues are determined, however, businesses should avoid treating the allegations or legal positions advanced by either side as established law.

Fair Dealing & AI

Canada's Copyright Act contains fair dealing exceptions permitting certain dealings with copyright-protected works for specified purposes. These include:

• research;

• private study;

• education;

• parody;

• satire;

• criticism or review; and

• news reporting.

Qualifying for an allowable purpose does not end the analysis. The dealing must also be fair.

The Supreme Court of Canada has identified several factors relevant to determining fairness, including the purpose, character and amount of the dealing, alternatives to the dealing, the nature of the work and the effect of the dealing on the work.

Whether particular uses of copyright-protected material in connection with generative AI or AI training qualify as fair dealing has not been definitively resolved by Canadian courts.

Accordingly, businesses should not assume that the use of copyrighted works for AI training is automatically protected by fair dealing. The analysis will depend on the particular conduct and circumstances.

AI Outputs & Copyright Infringement

Training data is only one side of the copyright issue. Businesses should also consider whether AI-generated outputs themselves may infringe third-party copyright.

An AI platform may generate text, images, music, software code or other material that resembles or reproduces elements of existing protected works. The fact that content was generated by an AI system does not necessarily insulate the person using, publishing or commercializing that content from legal risk.

Copyright infringement in Canada generally requires a fact-specific analysis, including consideration of whether a protected work or a substantial part of it has been reproduced or otherwise used in a manner reserved to the copyright owner without authorization or an applicable exception.

For commercially significant AI-generated content, businesses should therefore consider appropriate legal and intellectual property clearance before publication, distribution or commercialization.

Moral Rights & AI

Canadian copyright law also recognizes moral rights, which exist independently from economic rights.

Under the Copyright Act, an author has rights concerning the integrity of the work, and where reasonable in the circumstances, the right to be associated with the work by name or pseudonym or to remain anonymous.

Moral rights cannot be assigned, although they may be waived in whole or in part.

AI-related uses of existing works may therefore raise moral rights concerns where human-created works are altered, modified or used in connection with AI-generated material.

For example, depending on the circumstances, disputes may arise where an AI-assisted modification of an existing work is alleged to prejudice the honour or reputation of its author.

Whether moral rights are engaged or infringed will depend on the particular facts and applicable statutory requirements.

Copyright Ownership Not The Same As Contractual Rights Under An AI Platform

Another important consideration is the contractual relationship between the user and the AI provider.

Even where Canadian copyright law may recognize rights in particular content, businesses must separately consider the terms governing the AI platform itself.

Depending on the provider and service, contractual terms may address matters such as:

• ownership or allocation of rights in outputs;

• licences granted by users;

• rights relating to prompts and uploaded content;

• use of submitted information to improve or train models;

• data retention;

• permitted commercial uses;

• indemnification;

• warranties and disclaimers; and

• restrictions on particular uses.

These terms can change over time and may differ significantly between providers, subscription levels and enterprise products.

Businesses should therefore review the current terms applicable to the specific AI service and account being used rather than assuming that all AI-generated outputs are owned or commercially usable on the same terms.

Privacy, Confidentiality & AI

Copyright is not the only legal issue businesses should consider when adopting generative AI.

Entering information into an AI system can also create privacy, confidentiality, contractual, cybersecurity and privilege-related concerns.

Businesses should exercise particular caution before entering:

• personal information;

• confidential client information;

• privileged communications;

• trade secrets;

• unpublished intellectual property;

• commercially sensitive information;

• confidential deal terms; or

• third-party information subject to contractual restrictions.

The applicable legal risk will depend on the information involved, the organization, the AI provider's contractual terms and data practices, and applicable privacy and other laws.

Depending on the organization and industry, AI use may also engage professional, regulatory and ethical obligations concerning confidentiality, information security, record retention, supervision and verification of AI-assisted work.

Organizations should therefore consider implementing internal AI governance policies rather than permitting employees or contractors to use generative AI without clear parameters.

Developing An Internal AI Policy

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into ordinary business operations, organizations should consider establishing written policies governing its use. Depending on the organization, an AI policy may address:

• approved and prohibited AI platforms;

• confidential and privileged information;

• personal information and privacy;

• intellectual property ownership;

• permitted use of copyrighted materials;

• accuracy, verification and human review of AI-generated information;

• review and clearance of AI-generated outputs;

• employee and contractor use;

• disclosure of AI use where appropriate;

• record-keeping;

• cybersecurity;

• human oversight; and

• responsibility for approving commercially significant AI-generated content.

  
  

The appropriate policy will depend on the organization's industry, regulatory environment and use of AI. For instance, a technology company developing AI products will require a very different governance framework from a small business using generative AI to assist with marketing content.

Practical Considerations for Creators & Businesses

While Canadian law continues to develop, creators and businesses can take practical steps to better document and protect their creative contributions. Depending on the circumstances, these may include:

• maintaining drafts and version histories;

• documenting significant human creative decisions;

• preserving relevant prompts and AI outputs where appropriate;

• recording subsequent human edits and modifications;

• reviewing the applicable AI provider's terms;

• clarifying AI-related ownership in employment and contractor agreements;

• obtaining appropriate licences for third-party material;

• conducting appropriate clearance before commercializing significant outputs;

• registering copyright where appropriate;

• implementing internal AI policies; and

• monitoring unauthorized uses of valuable content.

Documentation can become particularly important where a business later needs to establish how a work was created and what human contribution was involved.

Should Businesses Register Copyright In AI-Assisted Works?

Copyright registration in Canada is voluntary.

Where copyright subsists, registration can provide evidentiary benefits under the Copyright Act. However, obtaining a registration does not necessarily resolve every underlying legal issue concerning the validity, authorship or ownership of a work.

This distinction can be particularly important for AI-assisted content. Businesses should therefore avoid assuming that the administrative issuance of a copyright registration necessarily establishes that every aspect of an AI-generated or AI-assisted work is protected.

Where a work is commercially significant, the circumstances surrounding its creation, authorship and ownership should be assessed before relying on copyright protection.

Conclusion

AI is fundamentally transforming the way creative content is developed, commercialized and consumed.

Canadian copyright law, however, has not yet answered every question created by generative AI.

Issues concerning authorship, ownership, originality, training data, infringement, licensing, fair dealing and moral rights remain developing areas of Canadian law.

For creators and businesses, the prudent approach is not to assume that AI-generated content is automatically protected, automatically free to use or automatically owned by the person who generated it.

Instead, businesses should consider the nature of the human creative contribution, the source material used, the terms governing the AI platform, third-party intellectual property rights and the intended commercial use of the resulting content. They should also consider the broader legal risks associated with AI use, including privacy, confidentiality, cybersecurity, contractual obligations, and applicable professional and regulatory requirements.

As Canadian legislation, policy and jurisprudence continue to develop, businesses should also periodically review their AI practices, agreements and internal policies.

Ranieri Law advises creators, entrepreneurs, technology companies and businesses on AI, copyright, intellectual property ownership, licensing, commercial agreements and the protection and commercialization of intellectual property.

Contact Ranieri Law to schedule a complimentary 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your intellectual property and AI-related legal needs.

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information may not reflect the most current legal developments and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice regarding your particular circumstances.

Accessing this website, communicating with Ranieri Law through this website, or reviewing any information contained on this website or our social media platforms does not create a lawyer-client, solicitor-client, fiduciary or other professional relationship.

Please do not submit confidential or sensitive information through this website unless specifically requested to do so by our office. Information submitted before a lawyer-client relationship has been established may not be treated as confidential.