US Copyright Office Rules AI-Generated Works Are Not Copyrightable

AI-Generated Art and Copyright: A Shifting Landscape

The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has issued new guidance clarifying the copyrightability of AI-generated works, stating that while AI art may win awards, it is not protected under American copyright law. This report details how AI-generated video, images, and text are treated under existing copyright rules, indicating no new legislation is immediately necessary. However, the protections available are limited.

AI Systems Cannot Hold Copyright

Courts have consistently ruled that AI systems themselves cannot be authors of copyrighted works. This stems from a 1989 Supreme Court decision (Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid) which defined an author as a person who translates an idea into a tangible expression. The USCO's guidance emphasizes that the inherent unpredictability of AI outputs means that users' prompts, no matter how complex, do not grant them sufficient control to be considered authors of the AI's output. The final output is seen as the AI system's interpretation, not the user's direct expression.

Human Control is Key

The core issue for copyrightability is the degree of human control over the creative process. Even with iterative prompt revisions, the USCO maintains that the user accepts the AI's interpretation rather than authoring the expression itself. This means that purely AI-generated content, without significant human creative input or modification, is unlikely to receive copyright protection.

Exceptions and Nuances

There are exceptions where AI can be used as a tool within a human-authored work:

AI as a Tool: Films like Robert Zemeckis' "Here," which used generative AI for digital de-aging, are copyrightable because the AI was employed as a tool, not as the primary creator. Similarly, films incorporating AI-generated special effects or background art are copyrightable, even if the individual AI elements are not.
AI for Modification: Artists using AI to modify their existing human-made works can still copyright the overall piece. While the AI-generated elements themselves won't be protected, the perceptible human expression in the final work will be.

Historical Context

The USCO has grappled with authorship in digital content since the 1960s. Early discussions focused on whether computers were merely assisting instruments or the actual conceivers and executors of creative expression. The current guidance reflects this ongoing debate, acknowledging that the definition of authorship may evolve as AI technology matures.

Future Outlook

While current AI prompts do not meet the threshold for human authorship, the USCO recognizes that future AI systems might allow users to exert enough control for their contributions to be considered original. The office will continue to monitor technological advancements and adapt its guidance accordingly.

Author Information:

Andrew Tarantola is a former Computing Writer for Digital Trends, with over a decade of experience reporting on emerging technologies. He can be found on Twitter at @terrortola.