Checking what the AI made

Play this lesson

Doesn't that look familiar?

Remy asks Nano Banana 2 for a studio mascot: "a friendly robot with a round head and big eyes". The first result looks great. Then Kai squints. "Hang on. Doesn't that look a lot like the robot from that famous film?"

Tools like Nano Banana 2, Lyria 3.5 and Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash learned from huge amounts of existing images, music, video and text. Most of what they make is new. But sometimes a result lands close to something that already exists, and nothing in it warns us.

Five ways AI output can come too close

If we ship it, it is our studio's game that contains the copy, so spotting these is our job:

"In the style of" raises the risk

Prompts that ask for the style of a living artist, or for something "like" a famous franchise or song, steer the AI straight toward that work. The closer it gets, the more likely the result copies a character, design or melody that someone owns, and a famous name can bring trademark trouble too. Many artists are also hurt to see their style copied in seconds.

The studio's rule: describe what we want in our own words, with shapes, colours, mood, tempo and instruments. It fits our own world better anyway.

Prompt pick

Remy needs boss music for Hyper Shards from Lyria 3.5. Which prompt is the safest?

  1. The main theme from a famous space movie, just a bit faster
  2. In the style of a famous living film composer, as close to their music as possible
  3. Tense synth music at 140 BPM, deep bass pulses, rising arpeggios, and a choir that enters when the boss shield breaks
Show the answer

Tense synth music at 140 BPM, deep bass pulses, rising arpeggios, and a choir that enters when the boss shield breaks

The third prompt describes the music in our own words, so nothing steers Lyria toward a work someone owns. The first asks for a copy, and the second aims straight at one composer's music.

The studio's checking routine

Before any AI-made asset ships, it goes through five checks:

Fan test

Kai's check notes, mascot v1
Reverse image search: top match is the robot hero of a famous animated film. Same round head, same eyes, same colours. Three friends named that robot straight away.

What should the team do with mascot v1?

  1. Ship it. An AI made it, so it can't be copying
  2. Drop it, describe a clearly different robot in our own words, run the checks again and record both versions
  3. Keep it, but change the colour of one eye
Show the answer

Drop it, describe a clearly different robot in our own words, run the checks again and record both versions

It fails the fan test: people who know the film see that robot. A tiny change still leaves a copy, so the team starts again with a new design, checks it, and keeps records of both.

Who owns AI output?

In the US, the Copyright Office's 2025 report on AI says copyright needs a human author. Purely AI-generated material is not protected, and with today's tools, prompts alone don't give enough control over the result, however detailed.

Human work still counts: our own art that shows in the output, creative changes we make, and the creative way we select and arrange pieces. Registering a work means disclosing any AI material that is more than a tiny part. Other countries treat this differently, and the rules are still changing.

Bolt says: A purely AI-made sprite may not be protected, so a copycat might reuse it. The parts Remy redraws by hand are human work, and those are protected.

Read each tool's terms

Each AI tool's terms say who owns the output and how we may use it. Google's Terms of Service, which cover many Google services, say that when a service lets you generate original content, Google won't claim ownership of it. They also forbid misleading people into thinking AI content was made by a human.

Two cautions. A tool not claiming ownership does not promise the output is free of someone else's rights. And each tool can add its own terms and age rules. You and a parent read the latest terms and save a dated copy.

Quick check

Google says it won't claim ownership of what its tools generate, so an AI-made image is sure to be protected by copyright and safe from lookalike problems.

Show the answer

False

Not claiming ownership only means Google leaves the output to us. Whether copyright protects it depends on human contribution, and whether it is too close to someone else's work is what our checking routine is for.

Honest with stores and players

Stores ask about AI too. Steam's Content Survey asks developers to describe their AI use: pre-generated content made with AI during development and shipped in the game, and live-generated content made while the game runs, which also needs a description of the guardrails. Valve compares the answers with the game and its store page, and shows much of the disclosure to players. Other stores have their own rules, so check the latest.

Our credits go further and say where AI helped: "Boss music made with Lyria 3.5, arranged by Remy."

Bolt says: This is general information, not legal advice. If a rights owner ever contacts the studio, a parent and a real lawyer handle the reply. Next: business insurance, for the bad days even a careful studio can have.

Fact-checked 9 October 2026