The U.S. Copyright Office declared Wednesday that the use of artificial intelligence tools to assist in the creative process does not undermine the copyright of a work.
The announcement clears the way for continued adoption of AI in post-production, where it has become increasingly common, such as in the enhancement of Hungarian-language dialogue in “The Brutalist.” Studios, whose business model is founded on strong copyright protections, have expressed concern that AI tools could be inhibited by regulatory obstacles.
In a 41-page report, the Copyright Office also reiterated that human authorship is essential to copyright, and that merely entering text prompts into an AI system is not enough to claim authorship of the resulting output.
This is the first time the Copyright Office has weighed in on the issue since March 2023, just a few months after the release of ChatGPT. The report broadly aligns with the office’s earlier positions, though it offers greater assurance of AI’s legitimacy when used to supplement the creative process.
“The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output,” the report states.
Consistent with its earlier guidance, the office also held that a work is eligible for copyright protection if the author creatively “selects and arranges” AI-generated elements.
“Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material,” the report states.
The report marks a significant event in the two-year debate over AI in the creative fields. When the Copyright Office asked for input on the issue in 2023, it received more than 10,000 comments, including many from artists and musicians who argued that AI steals their work and poses a grave threat to their livelihoods.
This is the second of three AI reports based on that input. The first, issued last July, called for legislation to combat AI-generated replicas that mimic a person’s voice and likeness. A third report will tackle the fraught debate over whether AI models should be allowed to “train” on copyrighted work without a license.
In its initial AI guidance two years ago, the office emphasized that work created by a machine is not eligible for copyright protection. Copyright registrants were directed to disclaim any AI-generated material.
The Motion Picture Association, which represents seven major studios, took issue with that provision, saying it was “misguided” and that it would prove burdensome and unworkable in the context of films and TV shows. The MPA cited a series of post-production processes — such as de-aging actors, removing unwanted objects from shots, and rotoscoping — that can benefit from AI.
“Artists have expressed enthusiasm for AI tools that enhance their work, and for continued technological development of these and similar tools,” the MPA wrote. “In short, the use of AI technology presents developing opportunities for creators and their audiences. MPA’s members are optimistic about that future.”
In its report, the Copyright Office referenced the MPA’s comments about de-aging and other post-production effects, and said it agrees that “assistive uses that enhance human expression do not limit copyright protection.”
The office also said it has no issue with AI being used as a brainstorming tool, or to create outlines for literary works.
Where it draws the line is with systems like Midjourney, which can generate images based on simple text prompts. To illustrate its point, the Copyright Office used Google’s Gemini to create an image of a cat smoking a pipe.
Many elements of the image — such as the human hand — appear to be random, the office found, concluding that the user does not have sufficient control to claim authorship.
Some commenters argued that AI image generation is an iterative process and that the user can assert control through multiple revisions of the prompts. The Copyright Office was not persuaded by that argument.
“By revising and submitting prompts multiple times, the user is ‘re-rolling’ the dice, causing the system to generate more outputs from which to select, but not altering the degree of control over the process,” the report states.
The office also rejected the idea of creating additional copyright protection for AI-generated work, taking note of potential threats to human creators, while acknowledging that “its effects on employment are difficult to predict.”
“We share the concerns expressed about the impact of AI-generated material on human authors and the value that their creative expression provides to society,” the office stated. “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.”