Copyright Office Releases New Report on Copyrightability of AI Works

On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) released of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Copyright Report, focusing on the copyrightability of AI-generated content. The report is a follow-up to the USCO’s broader initiative on AI and copyright law. Part 2 of the report discusses and clarifies what level of human contribution is sufficient to bring AI-generated creative works under copyright protection and the related legal and policy considerations. Here’s what you need to know:

1. Human Authorship is Required

The report reaffirms the traditional principle that copyright law only protects works created by humans. Thus, AI-generated material alone is not eligible for copyright protection unless there is a sufficient level of human input and control over the creative process. Longstanding legal principles define authorship as a human-driven creative process, and courts have consistently rejected copyright registration claims for non-human-created works. The USCO’s report reaffirms the position that, while AI can assist in human creativity, it cannot replace it to qualify for copyright protection.

The report thus draws a clear distinction between using AI as a creative tool and relying on it to generate an entire work. For instance, AI can be used to assist in the creative process by refining images, generating ideas or helping with grammatical errors. However, a human must still make substantial creative contributions for the work to qualify for copyright protection. If AI is used to autonomously generate a creative work without significant human involvement, it is not copyrightable.

2. AI-Generated Content Based on Text Prompts is Not Copyrightable

The USCO concluded that even if a prompt is extremely detailed or complex, it does not confer copyright ownership over an AI-generated output. The report reasoned that the prompts are basically instructions rather than expressions of creativity. While a prompt may describe an idea, the AI system ultimately determines the execution of the creative elements in ways that are not fully controlled by the user. The report highlights that AI does not simply follow instructions like a hired artist might, but instead interprets and generates content based on underlying algorithms and training data, making it difficult to attribute authorship to the human user.

3. A Case-by-Case Approach

The USCO suggests that copyright protection may apply to AI-generated works if a human edits, arranges, or selects AI-generated content in a sufficiently creative way, incorporates AI-generated elements into a larger human-authored work, or modifies AI-generated content in a way that adds original creative expression. It is important to note that each case will be assessed individually to determine whether the human input is significant enough to qualify for copyright protection.

4. International Approaches and Questioning the Need for Legal Change

The USCO also considered international approaches—noting that most countries are continuing to apply existing standards for copyrightability—as well as arguments for legal change to accommodate the advent and adoption of generative AI tools. Ultimately, the USCO concluded its report by stating that “existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability,” noting that “[c]opyright law has long adapted to new technology and can enable case-by-case determinations as to whether AI-generated outputs reflect sufficient human contribution to warrant copyright protection, and that “[t]he Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.”

5. Key Takeaways and Implications

Given these conclusions, stakeholders should be prudent when using generative AI in works for which they seek copyright protection, including:

• Ensuring that meaningful human authorship is included in AI-assisted works.
• Focusing on modifying, curating or combining AI-generated content with their own original efforts.

Moreover, the report stresses that it is important to be cautious when licensing AI-generated content. Businesses relying on AI for content generation should carefully assess the legal risks and ownership issues when selling, distributing or licensing AI material. Furthermore, creators who use AI-generated content should keep records of their contributions, as proof of human input will be essential for asserting copyright protection in the future. As AI technology continues to evolve, legal and regulatory frameworks may shift, making it crucial for businesses and creators to stay informed and proactive in their approach to AI-assisted works.

For more information on how this report affects your copyright strategy, feel free to reach out to our team for legal guidance and compliance strategies.