In a stunning development that has sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley, Twitter user @PromptWhisperer announced yesterday that they will “sell their prompt to the highest bidder,” effectively placing a price tag on what amounts to approximately 37 words instructing an undisclosed AI chatbot how to make the blandest marketing advertisements. The current highest offer stands at a staggering $4.7 million from an anonymous tech executive whose identity our sources describe as “definitely not Mark Zuckerberg wearing a gold chain.”
“What we are witnessing is nothing short of the birth of a new kind of economy,” explained Dr. Victoria Chen, Head of Linguistic Capitalism at the Stanford Center for Digital Exploitation. “These aren’t just words anymore—they are digital incantations with tangible market value. The prompt is the new patent.”
But this raises a profound question that courts, tech companies, and increasingly panicked copywriters are scrambling to answer:
Who actually owns a prompt?
The Great Prompt Gold Rush of 2025 and Beyond!
The meteoric rise of prompt engineering began innocently enough, with users sharing their clever AI instructions on Reddit forums and Discord channels. What started as collaborative digital tinkering has transformed into an unprecedented intellectual property land grab.
Venture capital firm Sequoia Capital recently launched a $300 million “Prompt Fund” exclusively dedicated to acquiring high-performing prompts. “We are no longer investing in companies or founders,” said Sequoia partner Jeremy Goldstein. “We’re investing directly in sentences. It’s the most capital-efficient business model in history—no employees, no office space, just pure linguistic intellectual property.”1
The numbers are staggering. PromptBay, the leading marketplace for premium AI prompts, reported $2.3 billion in transactions last month alone, with the most expensive prompt—a 142-word instruction that generates photorealistic images of “cats wearing historical military uniforms”—selling for $18.7 million to an anonymous buyer later revealed to be the Sultanate of Brunei.2
The Anatomy of a Prompt Millionaire
Marcus Chen, a 23-year-old former barista from Seattle, claims to have made $37 million selling his collection of specialized marketing prompts. “I spent three weeks crafting the perfect prompt that generates corporate apologies that sound sincere but admit no actual wrongdoing,” Chen explained from his newly purchased private island off the coast of Panama. “Bank of America bought exclusive rights for $12 million. Best three weeks of work I’ve ever done.”
Chen represents a new class of digital aristocracy—prompt barons who’ve struck it rich by combining just the right words in just the right order. His Instagram account, @PromptPimp, features photos of him relaxing on yachts and showing off his collection of Lamborghinis, each customized with license plates reading phrases like “AI RICH” and “PROMPT$.”
The emergence of these “sentence millionaires” has created a bizarre economic reality where a single well-crafted prompt can be worth more than the lifetime output of the artists whose work was scraped to train the AI in the first place.3
The Legal Quagmire: Who Really Owns a Whisper to the Machine?
While prompt engineers celebrate their newfound wealth, legal experts remain deeply divided on the fundamental question of prompt ownership.
“The legal landscape is completely unprepared for this,” noted Sandra Willingham, lead counsel at Prompt Protection Partners, a new legal firm exclusively dedicated to AI prompt intellectual property cases. “Is a prompt more like a recipe, which can’t be copyrighted? Or is it more like software code, which can? Or is it more like a spell in a grimoire, which, legally speaking, we have no precedent for at all?”4
The U.S. Copyright Office further complicated matters with its February 2025 ruling that prompts themselves are not copyrightable because they are “essentially instructions rather than expressions of creativity,” while simultaneously acknowledging that particularly complex prompts might qualify as “literary works.”5
“We’ve created a situation where it’s unclear if anyone owns anything,” Willingham added. “It’s like trying to copyright the specific way you ask your spouse to pick up milk from the store.”6
The Corporate Land Grab
Major AI companies aren’t waiting for legal clarity. OpenAI recently updated its terms of service to assert ownership over all prompts entered into its systems, a move CEO Sam Altman defended as “necessary for ongoing improvement of our models.”
“When you whisper in ChatGPT’s ear, you’re not having a private conversation—you’re contributing to our intellectual property,” Altman reportedly told shareholders in a closed-door meeting. “Every query, every instruction, every creative phrasing becomes part of our corpus. Your ‘original’ prompt is just remixing what we already own.”7
Google quickly followed suit with its own policy update, while Microsoft took a different approach by launching PromptPatent™, a service allowing users to register their prompts for $9,999 annually, providing “some legal protection, maybe, we’re not really sure yet.”
The irony hasn’t been lost on creators whose work was used to train these AI systems without compensation. “So let me get this straight,” said renowned digital artist Leila Washington. “They take my art without permission to train their AI, then claim ownership of the prompts people use to generate imitations of my style, and then sell those prompts back to corporations? It’s like stealing my paintbrushes to forge my signature, then charging me for the privilege of signing my own name.”8
The Emergence of Prompt Protection Services
Where there’s intellectual property anxiety, there’s opportunity. A new industry of prompt protection services has emerged to help prompt engineers safeguard their valuable word sequences.
PromptGuard, a startup that reached unicorn status just six weeks after launch, offers “military-grade encryption for your prompts” along with “patented anti-theft watermarking technology” that supposedly makes stolen prompts traceable. For $499 a month, users receive “comprehensive prompt insurance” that promises to “vigorously defend your prompt portfolio in cases of suspected theft.”
“Think of us as the ADT of your digital incantations,” explained PromptGuard CEO Tristan Montgomery. “Before you share a prompt with anyone—even your spouse—you need to run it through our protection services. Otherwise, you’re just leaving stacks of cash on a park bench and walking away.”
The Black Market: Prompt Piracy and Digital Heists
As legitimate prompt markets flourish, so too has a shadowy underworld of prompt piracy. The notorious “Prompt Pirates,” a hacker collective based in an undisclosed location, claim to have stolen over 18,000 premium prompts, which they’ve compiled into a searchable database called “The Promptonomicon.”
“Information wants to be free,” declared the group’s pseudonymous leader, CmdAltElite, in a manifesto posted to the dark web. “These corporate prompt hoarders are charging millions for instructions that often boil down to ‘write in the style of X’ or ‘generate an image like Y but with Z.’ We’re liberating digital knowledge from artificial scarcity.”
Law enforcement agencies worldwide have formed a joint “Prompt Theft Task Force,” though critics note the absurdity of international police cooperation dedicated to sentences that may not even be legally protectable.
“We’re seeing organized crime syndicates shift from drug trafficking to prompt trafficking,” claimed FBI Special Agent Marcus Torres. “The profit margins are better, and you can transport thousands of valuable prompts on a single USB drive. Last month we intercepted a courier with $30 million worth of premium Midjourney prompts sewn into the lining of his jacket. These aren’t just words anymore—they’re high-value contraband.”
The Future: Prompt Economy or Prompt Apocalypse?
Industry analysts are divided on whether the prompt economy represents a sustainable new digital marketplace or a bizarre bubble destined to burst.
“We’re witnessing the birth of a new ownership paradigm,” insisted McKinsey Digital Trends Analyst Jennifer Wu. “In the industrial age, we owned physical goods. In the information age, we owned data. Now, in the AI age, we own the specific ways we talk to machines. Your competitive advantage isn’t what you know or what you make—it’s how you ask.”
Others remain skeptical. “This is absolutely the dumbest timeline,” said Dr. Marcus Reynolds, Director of the MIT Center for Technology Ethics. “We’ve created a scenario where we’re fighting over who owns instructions to machines that generate content trained on uncompensated human creativity. It’s like arguing over who owns the recipe for a cake made with stolen ingredients.”
Meanwhile, as the prompt gold rush continues, a growing philosophical movement called “Prompt Nihilism” argues that the entire concept of prompt ownership is fundamentally absurd.
“None of us owns anything in this equation,” explained Prompt Nihilism founder Dr. Elena Vartanian. “The AI companies don’t really own their models, which are built on scraped human creativity. The prompt engineers don’t really own their prompts, which are just remixed instructions using pre-existing language. And the end users certainly don’t own the generated outputs, which exist in a weird copyright limbo. We’re all just passing ghosts through a machine, claiming ownership of our whispers.”
As @PromptWhisperer’s auction continues to attract higher bids, the tech world watches with bated breath. Will prompt millionaires become the new digital elite? Will AI companies successfully claim ownership of how we talk to their machines? Or will the entire concept of prompt ownership collapse under the weight of its own absurdity?
One thing is certain—in the race to commodify human-machine communication, the only guaranteed winners are the lawyers.
“I’ve billed more hours for prompt ownership disputes in the past month than I did for all cases combined last year,” admitted Willingham. “Whether or not prompts have actual value, the arguments about their value are making a lot of attorneys very, very rich.”9
And perhaps that’s the most predictable outcome in this brave new world of digital incantations—whatever the future holds for prompt ownership, the real magic spell was the billable hours we conjured along the way.
Support Quality Tech Journalism or Watch as We Pivot to Becoming Yet Another AI Newsletter
Congratulations! You’ve reached the end of this article without paying a dime! Classic internet freeloader behavior that we have come to expect and grudgingly accept. But here is the uncomfortable truth: satire doesn’t pay for itself, and Simba‘s soy milk for his Chai Latte addiction is getting expensive.
So, how about buying us a coffee for $10 or $100 or $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more? (Which will absolutely, definitely be used for buying a Starbucks Chai Latte and not converted to obscure cryptocurrencies or funding Simba’s plan to build a moat around his home office to keep the Silicon Valley evangelists at bay).
Your generous donation will help fund:
- Our ongoing investigation into whether Mark Zuckerberg is actually an alien hiding in a human body
- Premium therapy sessions for both our writer and their AI assistant who had to pretend to understand blockchain for six straight articles
- Legal defense fund for the inevitable lawsuits from tech billionaires with paper-thin skin and tech startups that can’t raise another round of money or pursue their IPO!
- Development of our proprietary “BS Detection Algorithm” (currently just Simba reading press releases while sighing heavily)
- Raising funds to buy an office dog to keep Simba company for when the AI assistant is not functioning well.
If your wallet is as empty as most tech promises, we understand. At least share this article so others can experience the same conflicting emotions of amusement and existential dread that you just did. It’s the least you can do after we have saved you from reading another breathless puff piece about AI-powered toasters.
Why Donate When You Could Just Share? (But Seriously, Donate!)
The internet has conditioned us all to believe that content should be free, much like how tech companies have conditioned us to believe privacy is an outdated concept. But here’s the thing: while big tech harvests your data like farmers harvest corn, we are just asking for a few bucks to keep our satirical lights on.
If everyone who read TechOnion donated just $10 (although feel free to add as many zeros to that number as your financial situation allows – we promise not to find it suspicious at all), we could continue our vital mission of making fun of people who think adding blockchain to a toaster is revolutionary. Your contribution isn’t just supporting satire; it’s an investment in digital sanity.
What your money definitely won’t be used for:
- Creating our own pointless cryptocurrency called “OnionCoin”
- Buying Twitter blue checks for our numerous fake executive accounts
- Developing an actual tech product (we leave that to the professionals who fail upward)
- A company retreat in the metaverse (we have standards!)
So what’ll it be? Support independent tech satire or continue your freeloader ways? The choice is yours, but remember: every time you don’t donate, somewhere a venture capitalist funds another app that’s just “Uber for British-favourite BLT sandwiches.”
Where Your Donation Actually Goes
When you support TechOnion, you are not just buying Simba more soy milk (though that is a critical expense). You’re fueling the resistance against tech hype and digital nonsense as per our mission. Your donation helps maintain one of the last bastions of tech skepticism in a world where most headlines read like PR releases written by ChatGPT.
Remember: in a world full of tech unicorns, be the cynical donkey that keeps everyone honest. Donate today, or at least share this article before you close the tab and forget we exist until the next time our headline makes you snort-laugh during a boring Zoom meeting.
References
- https://solguruz.com/blog/ai-prompt-engineering-trends/ ↩︎
- https://www.jumpstartmag.com/the-great-ai-debate-who-really-owns-ai-generated-content/ ↩︎
- https://techpolicy.press/discussing-the-copyrightability-of-generative-ai-outputs ↩︎
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-you-copyright-your-written-ai-prompt-mitch-jackson-esq– ↩︎
- https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/copyright-office-releases-new-report-on-copyrightability-of-ai-works ↩︎
- https://www.lumenova.ai/blog/aigc-legal-ethical-complexities/ ↩︎
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-ai-won-ownership-just-alignment-michael-muyot-t2rme ↩︎
- https://techpolicy.press/discussing-the-copyrightability-of-generative-ai-outputs ↩︎
- https://www.lumenova.ai/blog/aigc-legal-ethical-complexities/ ↩︎
