What copyright law says about 3D models and AI
9 provisions of US and UK copyright law and guidance read for this register, each quoted from the statute or the authority's own page, read 27 October 2026.
Whose law it is
What the provision settles
The rule, in its own words
Every answer from every provision
Each row is one provision. Click an answer to see the sentence behind it, quoted from the page with the date we read it. Where it says "not stated", the page we read is silent on that question.
| Provision | Whose law it is | What the provision settles | The rule, in its own words |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 U.S.C. 101 | the United States | what a 3D model is protected as | the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a… |
| 17 U.S.C. 102 | the United States | what a 3D model is protected as | Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of… |
| 17 U.S.C. 106 | the United States | the owner's exclusive rights | to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work |
| 17 U.S.C. 107 | the United States | an exception that allows copying | In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the… |
| CDPA 1988 s.11 | the United Kingdom | who first owns the work | is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner… |
| CDPA 1988 s.29A | the United Kingdom | an exception that allows copying | may carry out a computational analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole… |
| CDPA 1988 s.9 | the United Kingdom | who first owns the work | In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is… |
| UK Intellectual Property Office | the United Kingdom | the authority's position on AI training | Following the conclusion of this consultation a report and impact assessment have been… |
| US Copyright Office | the United States | the authority's position on AI training | the copying of expressive works from pirate sources in order to generate unrestricted… |
The 27 sentences the answers come from
- 17 U.S.C. 101, Definitions, read 2026-10-03, Whose law it is:
17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions
- 17 U.S.C. 101, Definitions, read 2026-10-03, What the provision settles:
include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings
- 17 U.S.C. 101, Definitions, read 2026-10-03, The rule, in its own words:
the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
- 17 U.S.C. 102, Subject matter of copyright, read 2026-10-27, Whose law it is:
17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
- 17 U.S.C. 102, Subject matter of copyright, read 2026-10-27, What the provision settles:
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
- 17 U.S.C. 102, Subject matter of copyright, read 2026-10-27, The rule, in its own words:
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
- 17 U.S.C. 106, Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, read 2026-10-08, Whose law it is:
17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
- 17 U.S.C. 106, Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, read 2026-10-08, What the provision settles:
the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following
- 17 U.S.C. 106, Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, read 2026-10-08, The rule, in its own words:
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
- 17 U.S.C. 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use, read 2026-10-27, Whose law it is:
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
- 17 U.S.C. 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use, read 2026-10-27, What the provision settles:
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
- 17 U.S.C. 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use, read 2026-10-27, The rule, in its own words:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered
- CDPA 1988 s.11, First ownership of copyright, read 2026-10-08, Whose law it is:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- CDPA 1988 s.11, First ownership of copyright, read 2026-10-08, What the provision settles:
The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.
- CDPA 1988 s.11, First ownership of copyright, read 2026-10-08, The rule, in its own words:
is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.
- CDPA 1988 s.29A, Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research, read 2026-10-08, Whose law it is:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- CDPA 1988 s.29A, Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research, read 2026-10-08, What the provision settles:
Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research
- CDPA 1988 s.29A, Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research, read 2026-10-08, The rule, in its own words:
may carry out a computational analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose
- CDPA 1988 s.9, Authorship of work, read 2026-10-08, Whose law it is:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- CDPA 1988 s.9, Authorship of work, read 2026-10-08, What the provision settles:
In this Part “author”, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it.
- CDPA 1988 s.9, Authorship of work, read 2026-10-08, The rule, in its own words:
In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
- UK Intellectual Property Office, Copyright and artificial intelligence consultation, read 2026-10-22, Whose law it is:
This consultation seeks views on how the government can ensure the UK’s legal framework for AI and copyright supports the UK creative industries and AI sector together.
- UK Intellectual Property Office, Copyright and artificial intelligence consultation, read 2026-10-22, What the provision settles:
the widespread use of copyright material for training AI models has presented new challenges for the UK’s copyright framework
- UK Intellectual Property Office, Copyright and artificial intelligence consultation, read 2026-10-22, The rule, in its own words:
Following the conclusion of this consultation a report and impact assessment have been published by the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology.
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 3: generative AI training, read 2026-10-08, Whose law it is:
Fair use is a judge-made doctrine now codified in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act.
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 3: generative AI training, read 2026-10-08, What the provision settles:
The Office expects that some uses of copyrighted works for generative AI training will qualify as fair use, and some will not.
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 3: generative AI training, read 2026-10-08, The rule, in its own words:
the copying of expressive works from pirate sources in order to generate unrestricted content that competes in the marketplace, when licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify as fair use.
The method in full
Each provision's own statutes and copyright authority pages were read through estate-fetch and stored whole (sha256 on every row).
For every page, three questions were answered from its own words: whose law it is, what the provision settles, the rule, in its own words.
Every stated answer carries the sentence it rests on, checked against the stored text; 'not stated' means the page read does not address the question.
A provision with several pages reads 'varies' where they disagree.
9 provisions, 9 pages.
13 named documents wait to be read; they are left out of every count.
22 sources, with links
- 17 U.S. Code section 106 (Cornell LII) (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- 17 U.S. Code section 107 (Cornell LII) (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- 17 U.S. Code section 102 (Cornell LII) (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- 17 U.S. Code section 101 (Cornell LII) (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- US Copyright Office, Circular 40: Copyright registration for pictorial, graphic and sculptural works (not yet read)
- 17 U.S. Code section 113 (Cornell LII) (not yet read)
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and artificial intelligence (not yet read)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 4 (not yet read)
- US Copyright Office, Compendium (Third) chapter 900: visual art works (not yet read)
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 2: copyrightability (not yet read)
- US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI Part 3: generative AI training (pre-publication) (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 9 (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 51 (not yet read)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 90 (not yet read)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 213 (not yet read)
- UK IPO, Copyright and artificial intelligence consultation (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 29A (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
- UK IPO, Copyright and artificial intelligence (consultation text) (not yet read)
- UK IPO, Exceptions to copyright (not yet read)
- UK IPO, Copyright notice: digital images, photographs and the internet (not yet read)
- UK IPO, How your unregistered designs are protected (not yet read)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 11 (from the publisher's own statutes and copyright authority pages; reproduced for comment)
Use this figure
9 provisions of US and UK copyright law and guidance read for this register, each quoted from the statute or the authority's own page, read 27 October 2026.
Whose law it is, by provision: the United States 5 of 9, the United Kingdom 4 of 9 (9 provisions, read 27 October 2026).
What the provision settles, by provision: the authority's position on AI training 2 of 9, an exception that allows copying 2 of 9, who first owns the work 2 of 9, what a 3D model is protected as 2 of 9, the owner's exclusive rights 1 of 9 (9 provisions, read 27 October 2026).
The rule, in its own words, by provision: stated 9 of 9 (9 provisions, read 27 October 2026).
Suggested citation: "What copyright law says about 3D models and AI", updated 2026-10-27, https://sell3dmodelstoai.com/datasets/3d-model-copyright-and-ai/.
Download as CSV (27 answers; derived 2026-10-27)