The Director of the National Tax Information (KIS) takes the position that graphics generated by AI systems are not the result of human work and therefore are not protected by copyright. This has implications for using certain tax preferences, such as the 50% tax-deductible cost (KUP 50%) and the IP Box.
Using AI systems capable of generating text, images, and other content (synthetic content) can reduce business costs or improve work efficiency. However, it may also limit the ability to apply increased tax-deductible costs (KUP 50%) and some tax reliefs. The core issue is the absence of intellectual property rights for synthetic content. For example, images generated by AI systems will not qualify as copyrighted works, and technical solutions generated by AI will not qualify as inventions. This is because synthetic content is not created by a human author. Consequently, no copyrights arise that an employee could transfer to an employer in exchange for author remuneration (KUP 50%). Similarly, patents cannot be granted for inventions (qualified IP rights under IP Box) that a company would license. It does not matter that a human initiated the idea or provided a prompt to the AI system specifying what should be generated. Nor does the intended use of the synthetic content matter, whether it is a marketing post, mobile app code and interface, or a product or packaging design.
The first indication that tax authorities support this position is the individual tax ruling issued by the Director of KIS dated April 29, 2025 (0115-KDIT1.4011.190.2025.1.MN). The request for an individual interpretation concerned, among other things, income classification from sharing “graphics generated using AI models.” The Director emphasized that such graphics are “the result of artificial intelligence, not a human who merely defines keywords or algorithm rules through commands. Graphics created this way are not works under applicable regulations. Therefore, they do not have proprietary rights. The income earned does not fall under copyright-related income and is not the result of personal creative activity.” This marks a significant shift. Previously, due to relatively liberal requirements for creating IP rights, especially copyrights, the risk that intellectual creation from an employee or supplier (e.g., graphics or source code) was not intellectual property was minimal. Now, when using AI systems to generate content, this risk is substantial.
Of course, using AI systems in the content creation process does not entirely exclude the possibility of creating intellectual property rights. First, if the content is generated with AI but the human exercises sufficient control over the final form, such as through detailed prompts and multiple iterations, IP rights may arise. Second, IP rights can result from human modification of synthetic content. Fixing obvious defects like extra fingers in an image or errors in generated code likely won’t suffice. However, adding new characters or code fragments may allow the modified version to qualify as a copyrighted work. Third, using AI as a support tool for human-created content, such as text or code editing, does not eliminate potential IP status.
What should companies do – as employers (KUP 50%) or taxpayers (IP-based tax reliefs)?
- Establish rules for using AI systems to generate content and require disclosure when content is fully or partially synthetic. These rules can be included in AI usage policies, employee regulations, and supplier agreements.
- Document modifications made by humans to synthetic content – what was changed and to what extent.
- Review whether the acquired or used content or products actually constitute intellectual property rights and consequently revise the amount of author remuneration (KUP 50%) or income from qualified intellectual property rights.
Marcin Balicki, Advocate, contributed to this review.
