By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Shareholder & Attorney at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, DTLA – Los Angeles, California.
Published on June 14, 2025.
As generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and other content creation platforms become embedded in how people write, design, and produce media, new legal questions are emerging—especially in divorce.
When spouses create digital or artistic work with the help of AI during the marriage, who owns the result? How is it valued? And what happens when that work has commercial value but no formal copyright protection?
This post addresses how California family law treats intellectual property generated with the aid of AI in the context of divorce.
Community Property Principles Still Apply
California is a community property state. Under California Family Code § 760, property acquired during the marriage—including intangible property like intellectual property—is presumed to be community property.
This includes creative work generated with the assistance of AI. For example, if a spouse uses an AI tool to co-write a screenplay, generate marketing visuals, or produce monetized content on a shared business platform, the economic value of that content will likely be considered community property, even if it lacks formal copyright status.
Copyright Law: Human Authorship Required
The U.S. Copyright Office has issued clear guidance: copyright protection applies only to works that reflect human authorship. Fully AI-generated content, without meaningful human input or creative decision-making, is not eligible for copyright.
“The Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process… without any creative input or intervention from a human author.”
— U.S. Copyright Office Policy Statement, March 2023
This means that in divorce proceedings, the commercial value of the content may be relevant for community property division, but the legal enforceability of IP rights may be limited depending on how the content was created.
Implications for Divorce Proceedings
1. Disclosure
Spouses should be transparent about the use of generative AI in developing any business or creative assets during the marriage. If the content has generated income—or may in the future—it must be disclosed during community property division.
2. Valuation
A forensic expert may be needed to assess:
Royalties or income streams Business goodwill from AI-assisted branding or content Value of derivative use (e.g., franchising, licensing potential)
3. Apportionment
If AI-generated content was started before marriage and developed or commercialized during it, courts may apply a Moore/Marsden-type formula to apportion the community property interest.
4. Settlement Language
Marital settlement agreements should:
Clarify ownership of AI-assisted work Allocate future revenue or royalties Specify rights to further development, licensing, or platform usage Address any open copyright status or pending applications
What Remains Unclear
As generative AI evolves, courts will continue to face new questions:
How do we weigh the creative contribution of a prompt? Can AI-assisted work be divided like a business? Will future legislation redefine what qualifies for copyright protection?
Until then, attorneys and clients should treat AI-assisted assets with the same diligence and care as traditional community property.
Copyright Review & Conflict Check
A review of leading sources confirms that the position outlined in this post is consistent with:
U.S. Copyright Office guidance (Compendium § 503.3; March 2023 policy statement) Legal commentary from California-based firms specializing in family law and IP Case law affirming that commercial value—not merely registrability—determines whether property is subject to community property division
No conflicts or duplications were identified with currently published professional blog content as of June 2025.
Recent Coverage on Midjourney Lawsuits:
“Disney and Universal’s Lawsuit Against Midjourney, Explained” – covers the June 11, 2025 lawsuit where Disney and Universal allege that Midjourney has “willfully replicating and distributing unauthorized copies of iconic characters” unless content filters are implemented.
“Disney and Universal Sue AI Company Midjourney for Copyright Infringement” (Wired) – reports this is the first time major Hollywood studios have challenged an AI firm’s output, calling the platform a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.”
“How the Disney‑Midjourney Lawsuit Could Reshape the Battle Over AI and Copyright” (TIME) – analyzes how this legal challenge may redefine “fair use” in AI model training.
“Disney and Universal file 110‑page lawsuit… ‘quintessential copyright‑free‑rider’” – details the complaint’s allegations, calling Midjourney a “copyright-free‑rider.”
“Disney and Universal Sue AI Company Midjourney Over Copyright Infringement” (WSJ) – describes the injunction and damages sought, including allegations of infringing iconic characters like Elsa and Homer Simpson.
“Disney says these images show how Midjourney steals its characters” (Business Insider) – discusses side-by-side comparisons showing the resemblance between studio characters and Midjourney outputs.
These articles confirm the developing legal consensus around AI image-generation tools and the importance of copyright filters and licensing. The upcoming court rulings may significantly affect how courts treat both training and output—themes directly relevant to generative AI in creative and marital contexts.
Disclaimer
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific legal matter, please consult a qualified attorney.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Shareholder and Attorney, Sally Castellanos at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, Industrious at Pasaroyo in Pasadena, 251 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 91101. Telephone (805) 732-2376 or (323) 655-2105.
