The United States Copyright Office determined that existing laws are sufficient to decide whether a given AI-generated work is protected by copyright, making additional legislation unnecessary.
What’s new: AI-generated works qualify for copyright if a human being contributed enough creative input, according to the second part of what will be a three-part report on artificial intelligence and copyright law.
How it works: The report states that “the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements.” In other words, humans and AI can collaborate on creative works, but copyright protection applies only if a human shapes the AI-generated material beyond simply supplying a prompt.
- The report rejects the argument that protecting AI-generated works requires a new legal framework. Instead, it argues that copyright law already establishes clear standards of authorship and originality.
- Human authors or artists retain copyright over creative contributions in the form of selection, coordination, and modification of generated outputs. Selection refers to curating AI-generated elements. Coordination involves organizing multiple generated outputs into a cohesive work. Modification is altering generated material in a way that makes it original. They retain copyright even if AI processes their creative work. They lose it only if the generated output is genuinely transformative.
- The report emphasizes continuity with past decisions regarding computer-assisted works. It cites a February 2022 ruling in which the Copyright Office rejected a work that had no human involvement. However, in 2023, the office granted a copyright to a comic book that incorporated AI-generated images because a human created original elements such as text, arrangement, and modifications. The report argues this approach aligns with prior treatment of technologies like photography: Copyright protection depends on identifiable human creative input, and that input merits protection even if technology assists in producing it.
Behind the news: The first part of the Copyright Office’s report on digital replicas, or generated likenesses of a person’s appearance and voice. It found that existing laws don’t provide sufficient protection against unauthorized digital replicas and recommended federal legislation to address the gap. Its findings influenced ongoing discussions in Congress, where proposed bills like the No AI FRAUD Act and the NO FAKES Act aim to regulate impersonation via AI. Additionally, industry groups such as the Authors Guild and entertainment unions have pursued their own agreements with studios and publishers to safeguard performers, artists, and authors from unauthorized digital reproduction. However, no federal law currently defines whether copyright can protect a person’s likeness or performance.
Why it matters: The Copyright Office deliberately avoided prescribing rigid criteria for the types or degrees of human input that are sufficient for copyright. Such determinations require nuanced evaluation case by case. This flexible approach accommodates the diverse ways creative people use AI as well as unforeseen creative possibilities of emerging technology.
We’re thinking: Does copyright bar the use of protected works to train AI systems? The third part of the Copyright Office’s report — no indication yet as to when to expect it — will address this question. The answer could have important effects on both the arts and AI development.