The ChatGPT Copyright Question Every Georgian Freelancer Is Getting Wrong 2026

Who Owns a Work Written by ChatGPT? A Legal Analysis

Thousands of Georgian freelancers, copywriters, bloggers, and startups currently utilize ChatGPT to create content. The question that everyone asks, but few answer, is this: if the AI wrote it, is it mine? Can I use this work? And/or can I attribute it to myself

Answering this question is not simple, as the answer depends on several factors.

The Law of Georgia on “Copyright and Related Rights” unequivocally establishes that copyright belongs to the creator of the work-the natural person through whose intellectual-creative activity the work was created. Consequently, artificial intelligence, as a system, cannot be considered an “author” within the context of Georgian law.

This means that, for example, text generated through ChatGPT does not automatically possess the legal protection afforded to a work created by a human. Even if we allow for a hypothesis regarding artificial intelligence authorship, the question arises: how would the system be able to enjoy the rights that copyright law guarantees to an author? Copyrights are not merely a prerequisite for recognition; their purpose is for the author to receive economic benefit and material income from their own creation. Artificial intelligence possesses no such needs; therefore, satisfying these rights is physically impossible.

OpenAI’s Terms of Use determine that the generated Output - that is, the content created by the artificial intelligence - belongs to the user, subject to certain reservations. Specifically:

·         The user provides the initial data (Input/Prompt) to the system;

·         OpenAI reserves the right to use this data for the further improvement of the model;

·         Commercial use is permitted within the framework of complying with the platform's rules.

Accordingly, a ChatGPT Plus or API user is formally authorized to realize here implies the commercial exploitation or sale the generated text. However, the legal side of the issue is not exhausted by this alone.

Core Legal Risks

The real problem, first and foremost, relates to the lack of originality of the work:

·         If the artificial intelligence created the text based on the protected works of other authors, there is a risk of plagiarism or copyright infringement

·         International judicial practice is developing rapidly, as evidenced by the ongoing dispute between such giants as Getty Images and OpenAI;

·         The client, in whose name the text is published, may raise a claim regarding authorship, which creates additional legal disputes;

·         According to the updated guidance from the United States Copyright Office, the core part of the creative process must still be carried out by a human. Artificial intelligence may be considered only as an auxiliary tool, provided that the work does not lose its originality and clearly reflects the human intellectual contribution.

Consequently, every work created by or with the participation of artificial intelligence requires individual evaluation and analysis, as it is impossible to provide a preliminary, universal answer to this issue. It can only be stated unequivocally that only a natural person should be considered an author. Meanwhile, whether a user will be considered the author of a work created through artificial intelligence depends on several factors: in what dosage and form the technology was used, to what extent it is possible to separate human intellectual effort from machine labor, and the degree to which the creative process remains directed by the human.