US Copyright Office suggests the great AI copyright debate was actually settled in 1965

The US Copyright Office has issued new guidance maintaining that existing copyright laws are sufficient to handle AI-assisted works, while reaffirming that purely AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted.

Key Framework: The Copyright Office bases its current AI copyright guidance on principles established in 1965 when officials first addressed computer-assisted creative works.

• Officials assert that questions about AI and copyright can be resolved using existing laws without new legislation
• The guidance stems from over 10,000 public comments and extensive analysis of AI-assisted creative works
• The fundamental position remains that works entirely generated by AI cannot receive copyright protection due to “insufficient human control over expressive elements”

Core Guidelines: The Copyright Office establishes clear boundaries between copyrightable human contributions and non-copyrightable AI-generated elements.

• AI-assisted works can receive copyright protection for human-authored portions
• Prompts alone do not constitute authorship, as they provide insufficient control over AI outputs
• Officials will continue reviewing AI disclosures case-by-case to determine which elements qualify for protection

Technical Considerations: The Copyright Office conducted testing to evaluate the relationship between human inputs and AI outputs.

• Even identical prompts can generate widely varied results from the same AI tool
• Current AI technologies do not provide enough human control through prompting alone to warrant copyright protection
• Some AI tools allowing direct manipulation of uploaded original work may qualify for partial copyright protection

Practical Implementation: The Copyright Office has already begun putting these principles into practice.

• Hundreds of AI artworks have received copyright protection for their human-authored elements
• Most cases involving human involvement in the creation process are expected to receive some copyright protection
• Officials note that similar cases are becoming easier to process as precedents are established

Industry Impact: The guidance appears to have limited implications for AI companies while potentially disappointing some artists.

• AI companies like Hugging Face indicate that copyright protection for outputs is not a major driver of innovation
• Some artists hoping to copyright purely AI-generated works based on sophisticated prompting may face challenges
• The Copyright Office expressed concern about protecting human creativity from being overwhelmed by AI-generated content

Future Considerations: The Copyright Office’s upcoming focus will shift to examining legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing and liability considerations, which may have more significant implications for the AI industry than the current guidance on outputs.