The US Copyright Office released Part 2 of its Artificial Intelligence Report on January 29, 2025, addressing the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. According to the report, existing copyright laws are flexible enough to handle the challenges posed by AI, but human creativity remains central to determining copyright protection. The report concludes that AI-generated outputs can only be protected by copyright if a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements.
The report, which follows Part 1 published on July 31, 2024, is part of a broader initiative launched in early 2023 to explore the intersection of copyright and AI. The Copyright Office has engaged in extensive public consultations, reviewing over 10,000 comments from stakeholders, including authors, composers, publishers, and technology companies. These comments informed the conclusions in the report, which emphasizes the importance of human authorship in copyright law.
According to the report, copyright protection is available for works where a human author has made significant creative contributions. This includes situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output or where a human creatively arranges or modifies the output. However, merely providing prompts to an AI system is not enough to claim authorship. The report states, “The outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements.”
The Copyright Office reaffirmed that the use of AI as a tool in the creative process does not bar copyrightability. For example, if an artist uses AI to assist in creating a painting or a musician uses AI to enhance a composition, the resulting work can still be protected by copyright. However, works generated entirely by AI, without significant human input, are not eligible for copyright protection.
The report delves into the role of prompts in generating AI outputs. A prompt is a text or other input that communicates the desired features of the output. While some commenters argued that detailed prompts could constitute sufficient human creativity to warrant copyright protection, the Copyright Office concluded that, under current technology, prompts alone do not provide enough control over the expressive elements of the output.
According to the report, “Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.” The report also notes that the unpredictability of AI systems means that identical prompts can produce different outputs, further undermining the claim that prompts alone constitute authorship.
The report also examines how other countries are addressing the copyrightability of AI-generated works. Countries such as South Korea, Japan, and China have all affirmed that human authorship is a requirement for copyright protection. In South Korea, for example, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism issued a guide stating that “only a natural person can become an author.” Similarly, a court in China ruled that an AI-generated image was protected under copyright law because the human user had made significant creative contributions, including selecting over 150 prompts and making subsequent adjustments.
In the European Union, most member states agree that current copyright principles adequately address the eligibility of AI outputs and that no additional protection is needed. The UK, however, has a unique provision in its copyright law that protects works “generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has not yet clarified how this provision applies to AI-generated works.
The report also addresses the policy implications of extending copyright protection to AI-generated material. Some commenters argued that providing such protection would encourage the creation of more works, benefiting the public. However, the Copyright Office expressed concerns that extending protection to AI-generated content could undermine incentives for human creators. The report states, “If a flood of easily and rapidly AI-generated content drowns out human-authored works in the marketplace, additional legal protection would undermine rather than advance the goals of the copyright system.”
The report also highlights the potential impact of AI-generated content on creators’ livelihoods. For example, Universal Music Group reported that the proliferation of AI-generated music tracks on streaming services threatens to dilute royalties for human creators. According to the report, “If authors cannot make a living from their craft, they are likely to produce fewer works. And in our view, society would be poorer if the sparks of human creativity become fewer or dimmer.”
The report acknowledges the desire for greater clarity around the copyrightability of AI-generated material. However, it concludes that existing legal doctrines are sufficient to address these issues on a case-by-case basis. The Copyright Office plans to provide ongoing guidance to the public, including updates to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, to help clarify how copyright law applies to AI-generated works.
The report also notes that future technological advancements could change the analysis. For example, if AI systems evolve to allow users greater control over the expressive elements of outputs, the Copyright Office may revisit its conclusions. However, for now, the report emphasizes that “copyright 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.”
The US Copyright Office’s report on AI and copyrightability provides a detailed analysis of how existing copyright laws apply to AI-generated works. While the report affirms that human authorship remains a cornerstone of copyright protection, it also recognizes the potential for AI to assist in the creative process. As AI technology continues to develop, the Copyright Office will monitor its impact on copyright law and provide further guidance to ensure that the rights of human creators are protected.
