What Law No. 2811-IX says
In Ukraine generated output has a dedicated provision — Article 33 of the Law "On Copyright and Related Rights" No. 2811-IX. It introduces a sui generis right in "non-original objects generated by a computer program". The key points:
- What the object is. It differs from existing similar objects and results from a program's operation without the direct involvement of a natural person (part 1).
- Who holds the right. Those who own the property rights in the program or hold a licence to it, including lawful users of the program. A contract may set who holds the right (part 2). So a service's terms of use are not a formality: they allocate the right.
- What is absent. Personal non-property rights, such as the right of authorship, do not arise (part 3).
- When it arises and how long it lasts. From the moment of generation, without registration (part 5). It expires 25 years after 1 January of the following year (part 6). An image generated on 30 October 2026 is protected until 1 January 2052. For comparison, property rights in a human work last 70 years after the author's death (Article 31).
- Other people's works. If the output was produced using others' works, the right in it applies only if their authors' rights are respected (part 7).
- Transfer. The right can be assigned to another person by contract (part 9), and use can be permitted under a licence agreement (part 8).
The law is in force; the next version, effective 24 March 2027, does not change Article 33.
Generated or created with AI: the difference everything depends on
The second sentence of Article 33, part 1, is often skipped: works created by natural persons using computer technology are not considered non-original objects. So there are two different cases:
| Generated without direct human involvement | Created by a person with AI as a tool | |
|---|---|---|
| What arises | A sui generis right (Article 33) | Copyright in a work |
| Who holds it | The owner or lawful user of the program, as the contract sets | The human author; for a work made in employment, property rights pass to the employer (Article 14) |
| Right of authorship | None | Yes, the person's |
| Term of property rights | 25 years from 1 January of the following year | 70 years after the author's death |
The law does not draw the line between them. "Direct involvement" is an evaluative term, and a court interprets it in the end. The practical conclusion is simpler: the more human decisions in the result (composition, selection, redrawing, editing the text), the stronger the case that it is a work. Keep a record of those decisions: draft files, versions, edits. In a dispute they show human involvement.
What services' terms pass to the user
Article 33, part 2, lets a contract set who holds the right. The contract with a service is its terms of use. This is what they say as of 30 October 2026:
| Service and document | Who owns the output | What the service keeps | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT, Terms of Use (effective 01.01.2026) | The user: OpenAI assigns all its rights in the output, "if any" | Use of content to provide and improve the services; training on your data can be switched off | Output may not be unique: other users may get similar output, and the assignment does not extend to it |
| Claude, Consumer Terms (from 08.10.2025) and Commercial Terms (from 17.06.2025) | The user: Anthropic assigns its rights in the output, "if any"; under the commercial terms the customer owns the output | Under the consumer terms, use of materials for the services; under the commercial terms training models on customer content is not allowed | Under the commercial terms Anthropic defends the customer against third-party IP infringement claims arising from paid use, with exceptions set out in the same section |
| Gemini and other Google services, Terms of Service (from 30.07.2026) | Google does not claim ownership of content you generate | A licence to your content — in the section on permission to use your content | "Won't claim ownership" is not an assignment of rights, as with OpenAI or Anthropic |
| Midjourney, Terms of Service (from 27.05.2026) | The user "to the fullest extent possible under applicable law"; a company with revenue over USD 1 m a year (and its employees) must be on the Pro or Mega plan to own the output | A perpetual, irrevocable licence to your prompts and outputs, with the right to sublicense | Outputs are public by default and other users can remix them; only the Stealth feature on Pro or Mega hides them |
Three conclusions from the table:
- A service passes on only what it has. The "if any" caveat means that if no right arose in the output under a country's law, there is nothing to pass on. In Ukraine the sui generis right does arise, so the OpenAI and Anthropic wording, together with Article 33, part 2, works in the user's favour.
- A right in the output does not mean exclusivity. OpenAI states plainly that another user may get a similar output. Your right in your image does not stop someone else from having their own, almost identical one.
- Publicity is a separate risk. On Midjourney without Stealth, others can see and remix your logo or ad layout. For drafts of new packaging or a name before launch, that matters more than any ownership question.
Terms change: OpenAI, Google and Midjourney updated theirs in 2026. Before an important use, open the current version.
Logo, product photo, text, ads: what to do with each
- Is it a logo or name that should become a trademark?Generation gives no exclusivity: another user may get a similar mark. Protection of a mark comes from registration. Designations that reproduce others' works of art without the copyright holders' consent are not registered (Article 6 of Law No. 3689-XII), so before filing check that the logo does not repeat a known mark or image. Yes → human rework, a similarity check, a trademark application
- Is it a product photo for the site or a product feed?The 25-year sui generis right arises at generation; exclusivity in the shot is usually not needed. What matters more is that the photo shows exactly the product sold and that the AI label stays in the file. How to check this is in the article on AI product photos. Yes → fine, with the IPTC label and the product's exact look
- Is it site text: a product description, an article, a service page?The more a person edited it, the stronger the grounds to treat it as a work by an employee-author. Then property rights pass to the employer under Article 14 unless the contract says otherwise. What Google expects of such texts is in the articles on AI product descriptions and on AI texts and search. Yes → human editing, with drafts as proof of involvement
- Is it an ad or layout made by a contractor or in a public generator?Check that the output is not public under the service's terms and that the contractor assigns the rights to you by contract. Yes → private mode in the service and a contract that assigns the rights
When a contractor or employee generates
When a designer or agency makes a logo or layout for you in an AI service, they, not you, are the lawful user of the program under Article 33. The sui generis right arises with them and passes to you only by contract: Article 33, part 9, allows it to be assigned under Article 49 of the same law.
So the contract with a contractor needs a separate clause on transfer of rights: the property copyright in the work and the sui generis right in generated objects, for the full term and all uses. A general clause saying "the contractor transfers the rights in the results of the work to the client" does not name the sui generis right; to avoid arguing over interpretation, name it explicitly. More on contractor agreements is in the article on contracts with contractors.
With employees there is an extra risk: if an employee generates in a personal free-plan account, the user of the service is that person, not the company. Give employees a company account and rules on what data can be entered; rules for data are in the article on data for an AI assistant.
Our position
Assume the generated output belongs to you as the user, but not to you alone. The law gives a 25-year sui generis right, the service passes on its rights "if any", and neither stops someone else from getting almost the same thing. For most business content this is enough: product descriptions, catalogue photos and ad variants do not need exclusivity. For what must be yours alone — a logo, a name, a brand character — generation can only be a sketch. Human rework gives copyright, and trademark registration gives exclusive protection of the mark.
The position does not hold if you work in markets where generated output gets no legal protection at all or different rules apply: Article 33 is a Ukrainian rule, and in other countries the same logo may have no protection. For an export brand, consult a lawyer in that country before launch.
Checked on 30 October 2026 in the texts of Laws No. 2811-IX (Articles 14, 31, 33, version of 31.07.2026 and the next one of 24.03.2027) and No. 3689-XII (Articles 5–6) on zakon.rada.gov.ua, and in the terms of use of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Midjourney on their sites. This is an overview of rules and terms, not legal advice for a specific case.