U.S. Copyright Office says AI generated content can be copyrighted

In an important and useful update published today, the American Copyright Office – which administers the copyright protections of the government to Human automated works such as films, television programs, novels, art, music, even software – said that certain forms of AI have generated content canIn fact, receive copyright protection, provided that a human contributes substantially or modified the content in question.

Clarity came in a new document: “Copyright and artificial intelligence, part 2: copyrightability(A PDF is integrated below), the second part of a Report which was initially published in July 2024.

He confirms that human creativity remains at the heart of the law on copyright law and intellectual property rights, even if the tools of AI become more widely used in artistic and commercial creation.

But this should also give companies in particular reassuring that their marks and their intellectual properties will remain protected even when they integrate distinctive products and brand brands in media generated by AI, such as Controversial Coca Cola holiday salesperson Released at the end of last year.

He marks something of a subject about the copyright office, after his publication, then at the beginning of 2023 canceled copyright protection in Kris KashtanovaAn artist and an ia evangelist for Adobe, on her graphic novel “Zarya from AubeWho created the images using the AI ​​Midjourney image generator (which Venturebeat also uses, including for this article header).

Reacting to today’s news, Kashtanova wrote on the social network X::

“Two years ago, I started to plead for copyright in AI. It was first Zarya from Aube then Rose Enigma that I made for that. It’s a little step forward and I’m so happy today. The work of AI can be protected by copyright. Your work counts. AI is creativity tools (and not replacing it). »»

The Copyright Office also indicated that a third section of this same report will be published in the future which will address the legal implications for AI training on material protected by copyright, including licenses and the responsibility. This should be a big problem for societies of generation of images, image and music of AI, not to mention suppliers of models of large languages ​​such as Openai, Anthropic, Google, Meta and many others – because they have all been trained in large quantities of copyte material transplant without express authorization and are currently faced with various prosecution of human creators accordingly.

Which qualifies for copyright in the content of content generated by AI

The report reaffirms the long -standing principle that copyright only applies to human creativity. Although AI can serve as a tool in the creative process, its outings are not copyricable unless A human author has exercised sufficient creative control.

The Copyright Office describes three key scenarios where the equipment generated by AI can request and receive an official copyright certificate from the office:

1. When the content of the author of man is incorporated into the AI ​​output.
2. When a human modifies or organizes the material generated by AI considerably.
3. When the human contribution is sufficiently expressive and creative.

In addition, the copyright office clearly indicates that the use of AI in the creative process does not disqualify copyright protection work. AI can help:

• Edition and refining of text, images or music.
• Generate drafts or preliminary ideas for human creators to shape.
• • Act as a creative assistant while humans determines the final expression.

As long as Human authorship remains an essential part of the final workProtection of copyright can always apply

However, the simple fact of providing text prompts to an AI system is not enough to establish paternity. The copyright office has determined that guests are generally instructions or ideas rather than expressive contributions, which are necessary for the protection of copyright.

Thus, an image generated with an IA service of text in the image such as Midjourney or Dall-E 3 of Openai (via Chatgpt), could not qualify for the protection of copyright. However, if the image was used in conjunction with an article in writing or man (like this), it would seem to be qualified.

Likewise, for those looking to use AI videos generation tools such as Runway, Pika, Luma, Hailuo, Kling, Openai Sora, Google Veo 2 or others, simply generating a video clip based on a description would not be qualify for copyright. However, a human assembly together multiple has generated video clips in a new set seems to qualify.

The report also specifies that using AI in the creative process does not disqualify copyright protection work. If an AI tool helps an artist, a writer or a musician in the refinement of their work, the elements created by man remain eligible for copyright. This is aligned with historical precedents, where the copyright law has adapted to new technologies such as photography, cinema and digital media.

No recommended legislative change

After having analyzed public comments – including more than 10,000 comments from creators, legal experts and technological companies – the Copyright Office has found no immediate need for new legislation, declaring that current laws concerning the law of ‘Author in the United States should resist the time test.

While some had called for additional protections for the content generated by AI, the report indicates that the existing copyright law is sufficient to manage these problems.

However, the office has recognized that it will continue to monitor technological developments and legal interpretations to determine whether future changes are justified.

Shira Perlmutter, copyright register and director of the American copyright office, stressed the importance of human creativity in the copyright system:

“After examining the vast public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn to the centrality of human creativity to copyright. When this creativity is expressed thanks to the use of AI systems, it continues to benefit from protection. The protection extended to materials whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would rather be able to pursue the constitutional objectives of copyright. »»

In addition, the copyright office plans to update its official collection of copyright practices to provide clearer directives to creators using AI tools.

The creators of AI celebrate the news

While the news of the new Copyright Office document has spread on social networks, in particular on X, the unofficial link of research sharing on AI and news updates, filmmakers and creatives of The AI ​​applauded the moving of a vocal contingent of human criticism and anti-ai artists.

“It is a huge victory for the filmmakers of AI around the world,” wrote filmmaker Nem Perez, one of the creators of the generated AI Terminator 2 remake, in a Publish. “The copyright office has officially declared what I had been preached for so long. The work that has been manipulated and transformed by humans are indeed copyright, even if the tools used were rooted in AI. It’s a big step in the right direction. Let’s move on and continue to break the limits. »»

3D host Robert William Bradshaw shared a similar feeling in a X post, writing: “This marks a historic victory for creators, solidifying the legitimacy of art and innovation assisted by AI. The doors officially opened artists, writers, filmmakers and visionaries taking advantage of AI to protect and have their creative works. This is a monumental step towards securing intellectual property rights in the evolutionary landscape of artificial intelligence. »»

The future of copyright in the AI ​​era

Although this report confirms that AI can be used in copyroid work, the Debate on the Paternity of AI is far from over. Courts and decision -makers can always deal with challenges as IA models are advancing, and future clarifications or legislative updates may be necessary.

For the moment, the key to remember is simple: AI can be a tool for creative works, but human authorship is always required to claim copyright.