Free Assessment
Under current U.S. law, work-made-for-hire doctrine doesn't apply to AI-generated output. If your team uses AI to create content, code, or designs, you may have less IP protection than you think.
Under current U.S. copyright law, work-made-for-hire doctrine does not apply to AI-generated output. The D.C. Circuit confirmed in 2025 that AI cannot be an author, employee, or party to a contract. We score how well your documentation, filing practices, and data controls protect your AI-assisted work product.
Do you have a written AI policy that addresses IP ownership? Do your employment and contractor agreements cover AI-generated work product? Most companies haven't updated their agreements — leaving ownership of employee AI output in a legal gray area.
Copyright protection requires evidence of human creative contribution. If your team doesn't document which parts of AI-assisted outputs reflect human judgment, you can't defend a copyright claim.
Enterprise AI tools, team accounts, and free-tier tools have very different terms for IP ownership and data retention. Are your employees using tools with terms you haven't reviewed?
Takes about 3 minutes. Results are instant.
Not ready for the assessment? Read the research first:
Your employees are already using AI. Most leadership teams know this — and most haven't updated a single agreement or policy to account for it. That's the gap this assessment is designed to surface.
Under current U.S. law, AI-generated output has no copyright protection unless a human made specific creative choices that shaped the result. The D.C. Circuit confirmed in 2025 that AI cannot be an inventor, an author, or a party to a contract. That means if your team is generating content, code, or designs with AI tools, and nobody is documenting the human contribution, you may not own what you think you own.
Employment agreements are the other blind spot. Most contracts were written before generative AI existed. They cover "work product" and "inventions," but they don't address what happens when an employee uses Claude or ChatGPT to produce deliverables. Is that work-for-hire? Depends on who — or what — did the creative work. If your agreements don't explicitly assign rights to AI-assisted output, you're relying on legal doctrines that weren't designed for this situation.
Then there's vendor risk. Free-tier AI tools often grant the provider broad rights to use your inputs for training. Enterprise tools typically don't — but your team might be using both, and you might not know which. One employee pasting proprietary source code into a free AI chatbot can waive trade secret protection for that code. Not hypothetically. It's happening right now at companies like yours.
This assessment scores your organization across four dimensions — IP protection, policy coverage, documentation readiness, and vendor risk management — and produces an instant report with specific next steps. It takes about three minutes. The companies that score well aren't the ones with the biggest legal departments. They're the ones that updated their agreements, documented their AI workflows, and reviewed their vendor terms before a problem forced them to.
If you want to go deeper, the essays behind this assessment cover the legal landscape in detail: how to protect your IP when employees use AI, and who actually owns AI-generated content under U.S. law.