Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement; The National Law Review, April 9, 2025

 Jonathan D. Reichman of Hunton Andrews Kurth   - Publications , The National Law Review; Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement

"In mid-March, a federal appeals court affirmed a ruling finding that artwork created solely by an artificial intelligence (AI) system is not entitled to copyright protection. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). This decision aligns with the position taken by the US Copyright Office in its recent report in light of the ongoing evolution, application, and litigation surrounding AI systems. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (2025).

While this decision may appear straightforward, future developments could arise through an application to the US Supreme Court or through cases addressing the extent of human involvement necessary in AI-generated works that seek copyright protection.

Key Takeaways

• The Copyright Act of 1976 (Act) requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being.
• The Act’s definition of “author” does not apply to machines.
• The work-made-for-hire doctrine requires an existing copyright interest.
• Thaler’s representation that the work was generated autonomously by a computer system weighed heavily against his challenges to the human-authorship requirement and the work-made-for-hire doctrine.
• The Court rejected Dr. Thaler’s arguments that (1) the term “author” is not confined to human beings; (2) the work was made for hire; and (3) the human-authorship requirement prevents protection of works made with AI.
• The Court affirmed the denial of copyright registration where the author of the work was listed as a machine."

The Copyright Office takes on the sticky issue of artificial intelligence; Federal News Network, March 11, 2025

Tom Temin, Federal News Network; The Copyright Office takes on the sticky issue of artificial intelligence

"Artificial intelligence raises storms of questions in every domain it touches. Chief among them, copyright questions. Now the U.S. Copyright Office, a congressional agency, has completed the second of two studies of AI and copyrights. This one deals with whether you can copyright outputs created using AI. Emily Chapuis, the Copyright Office’s deputy general counsel, joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to discuss...

Emily Chapuis: Yeah. That’s right. So we don’t recommend in the report that Congress take any action. And the reason for this is we think that copyright law is sufficiently flexible to deal with changes in technology. And that’s not just based on AI, but on the entire history of copyright law, has had to deal with these questions, whether it’s the development of the camera or the internet. The questions about copyright ability are always on a case-by-case basis. And the technology that’s used and how it’s used and what it’s used for are important elements of that. But the sort of defining legal principles aren’t different in this context than in those other ones.

Tom Temin: Right. So the human input idea then is kind of an eternal for copyright. How do you decide that? Is it a percentage of human input? Because the machine does a lot here. But you could say, ‘Well, the camera did a lot when it opened and closed the shutter and exposed silver halide. And then there was a machine process to produce that image. But it was the selection, the timing, the decisive moment.’ To quote Henri Cartier-Bresson, another French photographer. That’s really the issue here. The human input and not the machine input.

Emily Chapuis: Yeah, that’s right. And it’s hard to parse. I mean, we’ve had people ask, so what’s the percentage that has to be human created? And there’s not a clear answer to that, again, because it’s case by case. But also the question isn’t really amount as much as it is control. So who’s controlling the expression. And so one of the things that we try to explain is that even the same technology can be used in a variety of different ways. So you can use generative AI technology as a tool assistive to enhance the human expression or you can use it as a substitute for human expression. And so control is sort of the bottom line in terms of what we’re looking at to draw that distinction."

The US Copyright Office's new ruling on AI art is here - and it could change everything; ZDNet, February 3, 2025

 David Gewirtz, Senior Contributing Editor, ZDNet; The US Copyright Office's new ruling on AI art is here - and it could change everything

"Last week, the US Copyright Office released its detailed report and comprehensive guidelines on the issue of copyright protection and AI-generated work.

For a government legal document, it is a fascinating exploration of the intersection of artificial intelligence and the very concept of authorship and creativity. The study's authors conduct a deep dive, taking in comments from the general public and experts alike, and producing an analysis of what it means to creatively author a work.

They then explore the issue of whether an AI-generated work versus an AI-assisted work is subject to copyright protection, and what that means not only for individual authors but also for the encouragement of creativity and innovation in society as a whole.

This is the second of what will be a three-part report from the Copyright Office. Part 1, published last year, explored digital replicas, using digital technology to "realistically replicate" someone's voice or appearance.

Part 3 is expected to be released later this year. It will focus on the issues of training AIs using copyrighted works, aspects of licensing, and how liability might be allocated in cases where a spectacular AI failure can be attributed to training (which sometimes results in litigation)."

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."

Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report; U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060, January 29, 2025

  U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060; Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This Part of the Report addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”

In early 2023, the Copyright Office announced a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and AI. Since then, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars, met with experts and stakeholders, published a notice of inquiry seeking input from the public, and reviewed more than 10,000 responsive comments, which served to inform these conclusions.

The Report is being released in three Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and recommended federal legislation to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The final, forthcoming Part 3 will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.

As announced last year, the Office also plans to supplement its March 2023 registration guidance and update the relevant sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.

For more information about the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative, please visit the website."

AI Developments at the U.S. Copyright Office in 2024; IP Watchdog, December 30, 2024

  BARRY WERBIN , IP Watchdog; AI Developments at the U.S. Copyright Office in 2024

"“The art challenges the technology, and the technology inspires the art.” Such is the conundrum facing the U.S Copyright Office in this era of rapidly expanding generative artificial intelligence technology. Human creativity has been the cornerstone of copyright protection for original works of authorship ever since the U.S. Constitution recognized copyright as a fundamental right to be protected for limited times. But the tenet that originality exists only when a human is primarily responsible for creating works of authorship is currently in flux and subject to extensive debate. Nowhere is this tension more visible than within the Copyright Office itself, which has been grappling with the core issue of what defines human creation when sophisticated technology like generative AI plays a significant role in creating works of authorship under the direction of a human creator."

Pueblo artist seeking copyright protection for AI-generated work; The Gazette, August 8, 2024

O'Dell Isaac , The Gazette; Pueblo artist seeking copyright protection for AI-generated work

"“We’re done with the Copyright Office,” he said. “Now we’re going into the court system.”

Allen said he believes his case raises two essential questions: What is art? And if a piece doesn’t belong to the artist, whom does it belong to?

Tara Thomas, director of the Bemis School of Arts at Colorado College, said the answers may not be clear-cut.

“There was a similar debate at the beginning of photography,” Thomas said. "Was it the camera, or was it the person taking the photos? Is the camera the artmaker, or is it a tool?”

Allen said it took more than two decades for photography to gain acceptance as an art form.

“We’re at a similar place in AI art,” he said. 

“Right now, there is a massive stigma surrounding AI, far more so than there was with photography, so the challenge is much steeper. It is that very stigma that is contributing to the stifling of innovation. Why would anybody want to incorporate AI art into their workflow if they knew they couldn’t protect their work?”"

AI Copyright Issues ‘on Shifting Sands’ but Legal Protections Are Coming, Experts Tell PGA Produced By Conference; The Wrap, June 9, 2024

 Sharon Knolle, The Wrap; AI Copyright Issues ‘on Shifting Sands’ but Legal Protections Are Coming, Experts Tell PGA Produced By Conference

"Renard T. Jenkins — a former Warner Bros. Discovery exec who’s now president and CEO of I2A2 Technologies, Labs and Studios — said his company is working to help create an infrastructure to help with authenticating content.

“Back in the old days, you had watermarks,” he said, noting that file-based content can be altered to remove information about the original creator. “What we are attempting to do is create an infrastructure and ecosystem that would allow us to track every single iteration of a piece of content from its origins all the way through the distribution.” 

For that to happen, the PGA and other organizations would have to agree to a new standard. “It’s a very heavy lift,” he said, comparing the necessary level of cooperation to a cross-mafia agreement, describing it as the “five families of Hollywood coming together.”

He also suggested that blockchain technology could be used to “audit and track” every change to a piece of content. It’s the same tech used for Bitcoin and the much-maligned NFT digital assets." 

You Can Create Award-Winning Art With AI. Can You Copyright It?; Bloomberg Law, June 5, 2024

 Matthew S. Schwartz, Bloomberg Law; You Can Create Award-Winning Art With AI. Can You Copyright It?

"We delved into the controversy surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training AI systems in our first two episodes of this season. Now we shift our focus to the output. Who owns artwork created using artificial intelligence? Should our legal system redefine what constitutes authorship? Or, as AI promises to redefine how we create, will the government cling to historical notions of authorship?

Guests:

• Jason M. Allen, founder of Art Incarnate
• Sy Damle, partner in the copyright litigation group at Latham & Watkins
• Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office"

Public Symposium on AI and IP; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10 AM - 3 PM PT/1 PM - 6 PM ET

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Public Symposium on AI and IP

"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Emerging Technologies (ET) Partnership will hold a public symposium on intellectual property (IP) and AI. The event will take place virtually and in-person at Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, California, on March 27, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. PT. 

The symposium will facilitate the USPTO’s efforts to implement its obligations under the President’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14110 “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The event will include representation from the Copyright Office, build on previous AI/Emerging Technologies (ET) partnership events, and feature panel discussions by experts in the field of patent, trademark, and copyright law that focus on:

1. A comparison of copyright and patent law approaches to the type and level of human contribution needed to satisfy authorship and inventorship requirements;
2. Ongoing copyright litigation involving generative AI; and 
3. A discussion of laws and policy considerations surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL) issues, including the intersection of NIL and generative AI.

This event is free and open to the public, but in-person attendance is limited, so register early"

21st-century editors should keep their hands off of 20th-century books; The Washington Post, June 12, 2023

 Editorial Board, The Washington Post; 21st-century editors should keep their hands off of 20th-century books

"A number of beloved novels, for both children and adults, are being “retouched” — updated to remove overtly racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language. Publishers and literary estates — including those of best-selling mystery writer Agatha Christie, children’s author Roald Dahl and James Bond creator Ian Fleming — argue these changes will ensure, in the words of the Dahl estate, that “wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.”

But it’s a threat to free expression, to historical honesty and, indeed, to readers themselves for contemporary editors to comb through works of fiction written at different moments and rewrite them for today’s mind-set, particularly with little explanation of process or limiting principles. The trend raises uncomfortable questions about authorship and authenticity, and it ignores the reality that texts are more than consumer goods or sources of entertainment in the present. They are also cultural artifacts that attest to the moment in which they were written — the good and the bad...

Literature is often meant to be provocative. Stripping it of any potential to offend dilutes its strength, especially in a moment when there is a concerted effort in this country to limit what can be read and taught. Publishers need not reprint books with no acknowledgment of potentially offensive contents. They can treat the publication of such texts as opportunities to explain why they read the way they do, in introductions and in footnotes. And, if publishers see little option but to change wording, they should at least explain to readers what they are changing and why."