Nepal's Copyright Act 2059 (2002) does not mention artificial intelligence or decide who owns an AI-generated image. It defines an author as a person who creates a work, which makes machine authorship difficult to fit into the statute. Human-assisted work remains an open, fact-sensitive question rather than an automatic yes or no.
Key takeaways
- The Act contains no rule specifically for AI-generated images.
- Sec. 2(b) defines an author as a person who creates a work.
- An AI tool cannot itself hold, transfer or enforce rights under the statutory scheme.
- Nepal has no published threshold for how much human input makes an AI-assisted image protectable.
- Platform permission to use an output is contractual and is not the same as copyright ownership.
- Records, contracts and separate trademark or design protection can reduce commercial risk.
What does Nepal's Copyright Act say about AI images?
Nothing directly. The consolidated Act predates modern generative-image systems and contains no reference to artificial intelligence, prompts or machine-generated output. No special rule allocates authorship to the user, developer, platform or owner of the computer.
The analysis therefore begins with ordinary provisions. Sec. 2(a) describes protected subject matter, including artistic and photographic work, while Sec. 2(b) says an author is “a person who creates a work.” Sec. 3 extends copyright protection to a work and qualifying original derivatives.
Can an AI tool be the author?
The Act provides no route for that result. A tool is not a person under Sec. 2(b), cannot hold moral rights under Sec. 8, cannot sign a transfer under Sec. 24 and cannot bring an infringement case. The ordinary term in Sec. 14(1) is also measured from an author's life and death.
This does not automatically answer every question about the output. It shows that the software itself is not the statutory author. The separate question is whether a person using that software created protectable expression in the finished image.
Does typing a prompt make the user an author?
Nepal's Act does not say. A prompt can range from three generic words to a detailed visual plan, and systems vary in how they convert instructions into pixels. No Nepali section, published Registrar guidance or court decision found in the project research sets a prompt-based threshold.
It is therefore unsafe to state that every prompt creates copyright or that no prompt ever can. The responsible conclusion is narrower: authorship depends on whether a person created the relevant expression, and Nepal has not yet explained how that test applies to generative output.
What about substantial human editing?
Human drawing, compositing, typography, arrangement and retouching can create expression that did not come from the generator. Sec. 3(2) recognises original arrangements and derivative works without taking away rights in any underlying work. That supports analysing the human contribution separately.
However, Nepal provides no checklist saying that a particular number of edits is enough. Cropping and colour correction are not automatically disqualified, but neither do they automatically establish authorship. Keep the source layers and explain the creative decisions a person actually made.
Who owns an AI-assisted image made for a client?
First identify the human author, if any. Then consider Sec. 6. The author is generally the first owner, subject to the specific exceptions in Sec. 6(2), and payment alone should not be relied on to transfer the economic right. The written engagement should assign it.
Sec. 24 requires a written agreement for a transfer of economic rights. A contract should distinguish original human work, third-party material, raw machine output and the platform licence. It should not promise exclusive copyright in material whose legal status is uncertain.
Do platform terms make you the copyright owner?
Not necessarily. Terms may permit commercial use, allocate claims between the platform and user, or impose restrictions. That agreement can be valuable, but it binds the contracting parties and cannot create a Nepali statutory copyright that the law does not recognise.
Save the version of the terms that applied when the image was made. Check account-tier restrictions, confidentiality, training permissions, indemnities and prohibited uses. Do not paraphrase “commercial use allowed” as “exclusive ownership guaranteed.”
Can an output infringe somebody else's work?
Yes, in principle. Lack of a clear right in the output does not eliminate rights in material it resembles or incorporates. Sec. 25 addresses unauthorised reproduction, distribution, public communication and certain adaptations of protected work.
Review outputs for recognisable characters, photographs, logos and distinctive compositions before publication. A user cannot avoid responsibility simply by saying a generator produced the file. The guide to copyright infringement law in Nepal explains the enforcement framework.
Can AI images be registered with the Copyright Registrar?
Sec. 5 makes copyright registration voluntary, not a source of authorship. A filing cannot make the software a person or settle the required human contribution. The Act also does not state that registration creates a presumption of ownership.
Do not submit a human-authorship claim that the production record cannot support. For current filing practice, ask the Copyright Registrar's Office or a qualified lawyer. IP Sewa does not offer copyright registration or a copyright-search service.
What evidence should a creator keep?
- The brief: record the human concept and intended composition before generation.
- The prompts: retain material instructions and iteration history.
- The outputs: save rejected versions as well as the selected one.
- The edits: keep layered files, masks, drawings, typography and manual changes.
- The contributors: identify everyone who selected, drew, edited or commissioned the work.
- The agreements: preserve client terms, assignments and the platform terms in force.
These records do not guarantee protection. They let an adviser separate human choices from automated output and test ownership under Sec. 6 and transfer under Sec. 24. Without them, a later claim may rest only on memory.
How should a client contract address AI images?
Require disclosure of generative tools and third-party inputs. Define which deliverables are raw outputs, which contain original human work and which are licensed material. State the permitted business uses without promising exclusivity that cannot be supported.
Identify the commissioner, contributors and intended economic-right owner. Include warranties only to the extent the creator can honestly give them, and allocate responsibility for third-party claims. Ask a lawyer to tailor high-value or public campaigns.
Keep the signed agreement with the creative record. The copyright registration process may create an additional dated record, but it does not replace the contract or decide authorship.
Can trademark registration protect an AI-made logo?
A logo used to distinguish goods or services raises a separate trademark question. The Department of Industry administers trademarks under the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, 1965. That route asks about the mark, applicant, class and conflicts rather than treating the generator as an author.
Nepal follows a first-to-file structure, uses the Nice Classification, publishes accepted marks in the Industrial Property Bulletin with an opposition period and provides a renewable registration term. Search published marks through IP Sewa's trademark database, remembering it does not show registration status or unpublished filings.
A trademark protects use as a brand in the registered scope; it does not create copyright in the artwork. Start with the trademark conflict checker, then use the trademark-registration service for a filing strategy.
Can industrial design registration help?
If a visual is applied to the appearance of a product, industrial-design protection may be relevant. Nepal's design law has its own applicant, novelty, filing and registration questions. It should not be treated as a fallback that automatically accepts any AI output.
Ask who created or owns the proposed design and whether it satisfies the domestic requirements before filing. IP Sewa's industrial-design service can review the Nepal registration route, but legal-effect questions about machine creation may still need an advocate.
Which protection route addresses which risk?
| Route | What it may address | What it does not settle |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Human-created expression and related rights | Nepal's threshold for AI-assisted authorship |
| Platform contract | Permission and duties between user and platform | Rights against every third party |
| Client contract | Disclosure, deliverables and risk allocation | Whether copyright legally exists |
| Trademark | Brand use for specified goods or services | Copyright in the artwork |
| Industrial design | Registered product appearance | Authorship of unrelated image content |
The routes can overlap without replacing one another. A product graphic might involve a platform licence, human copyright, a client agreement, a trademark and a registered design. Map the commercial use before choosing protection.
What are the common mistakes?
- Declaring all AI output public domain as if Nepal had enacted that rule.
- Declaring every detailed prompt protected as if Nepal had set that threshold.
- Equating platform commercial-use permission with exclusive copyright ownership.
- Deleting prompts and layered files after exporting the final image.
- Promising a client fully exclusive rights without checking the workflow.
- Ignoring resemblance to protected art, photographs, characters or logos.
- Using copyright language when the real commercial need is trademark protection.
Where can you read the official sources?
Read the Copyright Act through WIPO Lex and check the consolidated legislation through the Nepal Law Commission. For trademarks and industrial designs, consult the Department of Industry.
No foreign copyright-office decision automatically states Nepali law. Comparative guidance can identify issues, but a Nepal claim must return to the Act, local procedure and any future Nepali ruling or amendment.
In short: who owns an AI-generated image?
The software does not fit the Act's definition of author, but Nepal has not published a rule deciding how much human contribution makes the user an author of an AI-assisted image. A confident universal answer goes beyond the available law.
Document the process, state ownership expectations in writing, check third-party material and use trademark or design registration for the separate commercial interests they actually protect. For related analysis, read whether AI can own copyright in Nepal.
People also search for
- Copyright for AI-generated content
- ChatGPT and copyright law
- Trademarking an AI-generated logo
- Copyright for artists and designers
- Copyright versus trademark
- Who owns AI-generated music?
Copyright questions about a particular image should go to the Registrar's Office or a qualified lawyer. If the image is intended as a brand or registered product appearance, contact IP Sewa about the appropriate industrial-property route.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Replying to —