Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence: Does the Content Your Company Creates on Platforms Like Claude, ChatGPT, and Manus Really Belong to You?

The New Legal Dilemma Facing Companies in the Age of Generative AI

The massive adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools has radically transformed Brazilian corporate routines in recent years. Advertising copy, programming code, institutional images, financial spreadsheets, marketing strategies, and even technical opinions are now being produced, partially or entirely, with the help of platforms such as Claude, ChatGPT, Manus, Gemini, and Midjourney. This movement, while representing significant productivity gains and reduced operational costs, brings with it a complex legal question that is still poorly understood by Brazilian business owners. Does the content generated by these tools really belong to the company that produced it?

The answer, contrary to what many might imagine, is far from obvious. It involves interpreting Brazil's Copyright Law, the terms of use of foreign platforms, the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), and the international regulatory trends that have been influencing Brazilian legislation. For managers, partners, and administrators, understanding these nuances has become essential to protect intangible assets, avoid litigation, and ensure legal certainty in day-to-day business operations.

Brazil's Legal Framework for Intellectual Property in Light of Artificial Intelligence

Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, known as the Copyright Law, is the main legal statute regulating the protection of intellectual works in Brazil. Its Article 11 categorically establishes that the author is the natural person who creates a literary, artistic, or scientific work. This premise carries a fundamental legal consequence, since Brazilian legislation does not recognize, at least at present, authorship of works produced exclusively by machines or automated systems.

When a company uses Claude to draft a report, ChatGPT to prepare advertising copy, or Manus to automate data analysis, a legal gray area arises. If the content was generated entirely by artificial intelligence, without significant human creative intervention, it may not be considered a work protected by copyright. In practical terms, this means that such material could, in theory, be used by third parties without the company having any legal grounds to prevent such use, a situation that poses a significant patrimonial risk.

On the other hand, when there is substantial human contribution to the process, whether through the elaboration of sophisticated prompts, technical review of the generated material, careful curation of the content, or creative combination of different outputs, it is possible to argue for copyright protection. The key criterion becomes the degree of intellectual involvement of the human collaborator in the creative process, in line with the legal scholarship that has been consolidating in comparative law.

Platform Terms of Use and Their Contractual Implications

Another aspect frequently overlooked by companies concerns the terms of use of artificial intelligence platforms. Each provider establishes its own rules regarding ownership of the generated content, and these clauses generally hold contractual validity even in Brazil, under the principle of freedom of contract and Articles 421 et seq. of the Brazilian Civil Code.

OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, states in its terms that users hold the rights to the generated outputs, subject to the possibility that identical outputs may be delivered to other users making similar queries. Anthropic, the creator of Claude, adopts a similar logic, with specific restrictions on using the content to train competing models. Platforms like Midjourney have distinct regimes for paying and free users, with the latter potentially having considerably limited rights over the images generated.

This contractual diversity demands heightened attention from companies, especially those that produce commercially exploitable content using these tools. Ignoring the terms of use can result not only in the loss of rights over the material produced, but also in exposure to litigation involving breach of contract, improper use of third-party intellectual property, and even violation of confidentiality clauses signed with clients or business partners.

Business Risks and the Protection of Confidential Information

Beyond the issue of ownership, corporate use of generative AI tools raises serious concerns related to confidentiality and Brazil's General Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados, LGPD), Law No. 13,709/2018. When employees enter sensitive information into prompts, such as client data, trade secrets, internal strategies, financial information, or protected personal data, these elements may be stored, processed, or eventually used to train the models, depending on the platform and the plan contracted.

The Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, STJ) has reinforced, in several recent rulings, the strict liability of companies for the improper handling of personal data, with the cumulative application of LGPD administrative sanctions and compensation for collective moral damages. In this context, the absence of clear internal policies on the use of artificial intelligence may constitute corporate negligence, with serious financial and reputational consequences, especially in cases of security incidents involving strategic information.

Companies operating in regulated sectors, such as finance, law, healthcare, and technology, face even higher risks. The inadvertent leakage of confidential information through prompts entered into public tools may constitute a breach of professional secrecy, a violation of contractual clauses with clients, and even an infringement of sector-specific regulations, such as those issued by the Central Bank, the Securities and Exchange Commission (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários), and the professional councils responsible for overseeing each category.

International Case Law and Brazilian Regulatory Trends

International case law has provided important guidance on the intellectual property status of content generated by artificial intelligence. In the United States, the case Thaler v. Perlmutter, decided by the U.S. District Court in 2023 and upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2025, established that works created exclusively by autonomous AI systems, without significant human intervention, cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Decisions with similar reasoning have been issued in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and China.

In Brazil, Bill No. 2,338/2023, known as the Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Marco Legal da Inteligência Artificial), is at an advanced stage of proceedings in the National Congress and promises to bring greater clarity to the subject. The text under discussion sets out specific rules on liability, algorithmic transparency, user rights, and the treatment of data used to train models. Although still pending final approval, its provisions already reflect the legal and jurisprudential understanding that has been consolidating both domestically and internationally.

Brazil's Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais, CARF) has also begun examining tax issues related to expenses with AI platforms, particularly regarding the deductibility of costs for services contracted from foreign companies and the potential incidence of taxes such as withholding income tax (IRRF), the Contribution for Intervention in the Economic Domain (CIDE), and PIS/COFINS on imports. These aspects, often overlooked by managers, can lead to significant tax assessments for companies that make intensive use of such tools in their business operations.

Best Practices and Corporate Risk Mitigation Strategies

Given this complex scenario, attentive companies have been adopting a series of best practices to mitigate legal risks related to the use of generative artificial intelligence. The first of these consists of developing clear internal policies that regulate employees' use of these tools, establishing what may or may not be entered into prompts, which platforms are authorized, and what procedures must be followed to ensure the confidentiality of business information.

Contracting enterprise plans, rather than using free or personal versions, tends to offer greater contractual protection, with specific confidentiality clauses, guarantees against using entered data for training purposes, and even indemnification against third-party claims related to intellectual property. Companies that produce commercially valuable content using AI should properly document the creative process, demonstrating substantial human contribution, in order to strengthen any future claims of copyright protection in litigious contexts.

Contract review with clients, suppliers, and business partners also becomes essential, especially in sectors where confidentiality is a core element of the relationship. Clauses that govern the use of AI in the performance of services, with transparency about which tools will be used and what safeguards will be adopted, provide legal certainty to all parties involved and significantly reduce the risk of future disputes.

The Importance of Preventive Legal Counsel

The question of who owns content generated by artificial intelligence tools is far from merely academic. It is a matter of profound business relevance, with direct implications for intangible assets, regulatory compliance, personal data protection, and civil liability. The answer to the initial question, therefore, depends on a multifactorial analysis involving Brazilian legislation, the contractual terms of the platforms, the degree of human contribution, and a constantly evolving regulatory context.

Companies that wish to fully benefit from artificial intelligence, without exposing themselves to unnecessary legal risks, need to adopt a proactive stance.

This involves a critical understanding of the applicable legal framework, the implementation of robust internal policies, constant review of operational practices, and monitoring of the regulatory trends taking shape on the horizon. Specialized, preventive legal counsel proves especially valuable in this context, helping to build a consistent strategy that combines technological innovation with legal certainty, two pillars that are indispensable for business competitiveness in today's environment.