Hello AI, Goodbye IP.

Google's own terms of service admit as much: "We know it's tempting to skip these Terms of Service, but it's important to establish what you can expect from us as you use Google services, and what we expect from you."  Fair enough, but in practice almost no one reads them, and that's precisely the problem.  From an intellectual property perspective, it would be even clearer to say: caution, you are losing IP rights by using this AI tool.

I am certainly not the first to post about this issue, but it still seems that this issue has not filtered down to the people who need to understand it the most.  Over the past few weeks, I've had clients come to me with what seems like a straightforward request: "We've been developing new technology and we want to protect it."  Most clients don’t mention that AI was used in development.  So, I ask a follow-up question that is now routine: “Did you use AI tools in the development process?”  Unsurprisingly, the answer is usually yes.  Then I ask for the terms of service (or terms and conditions) for the AI tools.  All too often after I review the terms of service, and explain them, an uncomfortable realization sets in.

Most consumer AI terms of service, including Google's, expressly disclaim ownership over content a user generates.  Google's terms state that "your content remains yours," and that the company "won't claim ownership over that content."  So far, so good.

However, the terms of service grant the provider a broad license over everything submitted, prompts, technical descriptions, code, and other input.  In Google's case, that license is worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, and permits Google to host, reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works from, and even sublicense that content to contractors. In addition, the license doesn't expire when you stop using the AI service.  The license lasts "for as long as your content is protected by intellectual property rights."

Two IP protections quietly disappear as a result.  Trade secret protection depends on the owner taking reasonable measures to maintain secrecy.  If the governing terms of service of an AI tool contain no confidentiality obligation running from the provider back to the user, and instead simply authorize broad internal analysis and use "for developing new technologies and services," it becomes very hard to argue that reasonable secrecy measures were maintained once confidential technical details, architecture, algorithms, specifications, went into the AI tool.

Patent protection is based on novelty (among other things).  Many terms of service allow the provider to publish or publicly display content the user has made visible to others.  Public disclosure of an invention before a patent application is filed can be prior-art-defeating in most jurisdictions outside the U.S., and even in the U.S., it triggers the one-year grace period that starts running the moment that disclosure happens.

So, using a tool without understanding the applicable terms of service can significantly damage your intellectual property rights and any remaining rights are subject to a broad license to the AI provider.

Enterprise or business-tier agreements often layer in additional protections, like data processing addenda, no-training commitments, or confidentiality clauses, that consumer terms lack.  But those protections have to actually be reviewed and confirmed.  The protections are not something you can assume exists just because the product has "enterprise" in the name or because you are paying a fee for the AI tool.

Before feeding proprietary technical information into any AI tool, know which specific product and tier you're using, read the terms of service or applicable license (not just the ownership disclaimer), and confirm whether any confidentiality or no-training commitment actually exists in writing.  In doing so, you’ll be able to protect your IP and avoid a loss of trade secret and patent rights.