AI-assisted works can get copyright with enough human creativity, says US copyright office; AP, January 29, 2025

MATT O’BRIEN, AP; AI-assisted works can get copyright with enough human creativity, says US copyright office

"Artists can copyright works they made with the help of artificial intelligence, according to a new report by the U.S. Copyright Office that could further clear the way for the use of AI tools in Hollywood, the music industry and other creative fields.

The nation’s copyright office, which sits in the Library of Congress and is not part of the executive branch, receives about half a million copyright applications per year covering millions of individual works. It has increasingly been asked to register works that are AI-generated.

And while many of those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, the report issued Wednesday clarifies the office’s approach as one based on what the top U.S. copyright official describes as the “centrality of human creativity” in authoring a work that warrants copyright protections."

AI Art Copyright Stays Doubtful After Appeals Court Argument ; Bloomberg Law, September 19, 2024

Kyle Jahner, Aruni Soni , Bloomberg Law; AI Art Copyright Stays Doubtful After Appeals Court Argument 

"The first federal appeals court battle over the boundaries of copyright law’s application to AI-generated works carries huge implications for creative industries given the rapid proliferation of the technology. The circumstances upon which copyright vests in work wholly or partly created by AI and who gets to control and enforce that right will hinge on interpretations of cases like Thaler’s."

AI and Copyright in China; Lexology, April 15, 2022

 Harris Bricken - Fred Rocafort, Lexology; AI and Copyright in China 

"In the landmark Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun case, the Nanshan District People’s Court considered whether an article written by Tencent’s AI software Dreamwriter was entitled to copyright protection. The court found that it was, with copyright vesting in Dreamwriter’s developers, not Dreamwriter itself. In its decision, the court noted that “the arrangement and selection of the creative team in terms of data input, trigger condition setting, template and corpus style choices are intellectual activities that have a direct connection with the specific expression of the article.” These intellectual activities were carried out by the software developers.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has distinguished between works that are generated without human intervention (“AI-generated”) and works generated with material human intervention and/or direction (“AI-assisted”). In the case of AI-assisted works, artificial intelligence is arguably just a tool used by humans. Vesting of copyright in the humans involved in these cases is consistent with existing copyright law, just as an artist owns the copyright to a portrait made using a paintbrush or a song recorded using a guitar. The scenario in the Tencent case falls in the AI-assisted bucket, with Dreamwriter being the tool."