U.S. Copyright Office Rules AI-Generated Works Aren’t Copyrightable

A new report from the U.S. Copyright Office provides much-needed clarity on the copyrightability of AI-generated content. Titled “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability,” the report concludes that fully AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection, but works that incorporate AI with sufficient human contribution may be.

This report is the second in a series exploring AI’s impact on copyright law, following an earlier publication on digital replicas of individuals.

Key Findings from the Report

The Copyright Office’s study, informed by over 10,000 public comments, outlines the following conclusions:

• Fully AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection. Copyright law requires human authorship, meaning that works created solely by AI do not qualify.

• AI-assisted works can be protected—but only if there is enough human involvement. A writer or artist who uses AI as a tool to develop, modify, or arrange content can still own copyright over their contributions. The Office emphasized that:

1. Human involvement must be substantial and creative. Slight tweaks or minimal modifications aren’t enough—the human contribution must be meaningful.

2. Editing, selecting, and arranging AI-generated content in a creative way can qualify. Even if a person doesn’t create every element from scratch, they may claim copyright if they organize, modify, and integrate AI content in a way that reflects their own artistic choices.

3. Each case will be judged individually. The Office will determine copyright eligibility based on whether a human’s creative contribution is significant enough to justify protection.

• Prompts alone aren’t enough to claim copyright. Simply entering a text prompt into an AI model does not make someone the “author” of the resulting output. The Office clarified that:

1. Prompts are instructions, not authorship. Courts have ruled that giving directions (like “generate a painting of a sunset”) does not create a copyrightable work.

2. The more detailed and iterative the process, the stronger the claim. However, current AI models are too unpredictable for prompts alone to qualify as creative authorship.

3. Human contribution must be “perceptible” in the final work. A person must modify, arrange, or integrate AI-generated content in a way that reflects their own creativity to qualify for copyright.

4. The Office concluded that each case will be judged individually, meaning creators must demonstrate clear, original contributions beyond just using AI.

• No need for new copyright laws—yet. The Office determined that existing copyright law is sufficient to handle AI-generated content but will continue monitoring developments.

Why This Matters

The debate over AI and copyright has significant implications for writers, artists, musicians, and businesses using AI tools. Many fear AI could dilute creative ownership, while others argue that AI can be a valuable tool for human creators.

This report reaffirms that AI itself cannot be an author under U.S. law. However, it also acknowledges that AI is becoming a powerful assistive tool—one that could reshape creative industries.

Looking Ahead

The Copyright Office will continue evaluating whether legal changes are necessary as AI technology evolves. Meanwhile, creators should be mindful of how they use AI, ensuring their contributions meet copyright standards if they wish to claim protection.

For those interested in the full findings, the complete report is available here: U.S. Copyright Office AI Report.

Editor’s Note: This article was created by Alicia Shapiro, CMO of AiNews.com, with writing, image, and idea-generation support from ChatGPT, an AI assistant. However, the final perspective and editorial choices are solely Alicia Shapiro’s. Special thanks to ChatGPT for assistance with research and editorial support in crafting this article.