In an important and helpful update issued today, the U.S. Copyright Office — which administers copyright protections from the government to human-authored works such as films, TV shows, novels, art, music, even software — clarified that some forms of AI generated content can, in fact, receive copyright protection, provided that a human substantially contributed or changed the content in question.
The clarity came in a new document, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability” (a PDF is embedded below), the second portion of a report that was initially released in July 2024.
The report confirms that human creativity remains central to copyright law and intellectual property (IP) rights, even as AI tools become more widely used in artistic and commercial creation.
But it should also give enterprises, in particular, reassurance that their brands and IP will remain protected even when they integrate distinctive products and brand marks into AI generated media, such as Coca Cola’s controversial AI holiday commercial released late last year.
It marks something of an about-face for the Copyright Office, after it issued, then rescinded a copyright protection to Kris Kashtanova, an artist and AI evangelist for Adobe, on her graphic novel “Zarya of the Dawn,” who created the images using AI image generator Midjourney (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 advocating for copyright in AI. It was first Zarya of the Dawn and then Rose Enigma I did for this. It’s a small step forward and I am so happy today. AI work can be copyrighted. Your work matters. AI are tools for creativity (not replacement of it).”
The Copyright Office also said a third section of this same report will be issued in the future to address the legal implications of training AI on copyrighted material, including licensing and liability.
That third section should be a big deal for AI image, video and music generating companies, not to mention large language model (LLM) providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and numerous others — as they are all said to have trained on vast quantities of copyrighted material without express permission and are currently facing various lawsuits from human creators as a result.
What qualifies for copyright in the AI generated era of content
The report reaffirms the longstanding principle that copyright applies only to human creativity. While AI can serve as a tool in the creative process, its outputs are not copyrightable unless a human author has exercised sufficient creative control.
The Copyright Office outlines three key scenarios where AI-generated material can apply for, and receive, an official certificate of copyright from the office:
- When human-authored content is incorporated into the AI output.
- When a human significantly modifies or arranges the AI-generated material.
- When the human contribution is sufficiently expressive and creative.
In addition, the Copyright Office makes clear that using AI in the creative process does not disqualify a work from copyright protection. AI can assist with:
- Editing and refining text, images or music.
- Generating drafts or preliminary ideas for human creators to shape.
- Acting as a creative assistant while the human determines the final expression.
As long as human authorship remains a core part of the final work, copyright protection can still apply.
However, merely providing text prompts to an AI system is not enough to establish authorship. The Copyright Office determined that prompts are generally instructions or ideas rather than expressive contributions, which are required for copyright protection.
Thus, an image generated with a text-to-image AI service such as Midjourney or OpenAI’s DALL-E 3 (via ChatGPT), on its own could not qualify for copyright protection. However, if the image was used in conjunction with a human-authored or human-edited article (such as this one), then it would seem to qualify.
Similarly, for those looking to use AI video 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 qualify for copyright. Yet, a human editing together multiple AI generated video clips into a new whole would seem to qualify.
The report also clarifies that using AI in the creative process does not disqualify a work from copyright protection. If an AI tool assists an artist, writer or musician in refining their work, the human-created elements remain eligible for copyright. This aligns with historical precedents, where copyright law has adapted to new technologies such as photography, film and digital media.
No legislative changes recommended
After analyzing public feedback — including more than 10,000 comments from creators, legal experts and technology companies — the Copyright Office found no immediate need for new legislation, stating that the current laws around copyright in the U.S. should stand the test of time.
While some had called for additional protections for AI-generated content, the report states that existing copyright law is sufficient to handle these issues.
The Office did, however, acknowledge that it will continue monitoring technological developments and legal interpretations to determine if future changes are warranted.
Shira Perlmutter, register of copyrights and director of the U.S. Copyright Office, emphasized the importance of human creativity in the copyright system:
“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright. 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.”
Additionally, the Copyright Office plans to update its official Compendium of Copyright Practices to provide clearer guidelines for creators using AI tools.
AI creators celebrate the news
As news of the Copyright Office’s new document spread across social media, particularly on X — the unofficial nexus of AI research sharing and news updates — AI filmmakers and creatives applauded the move, welcoming the opportunity to receive copyright protections on their work even in the face of a vocal contingent of human critics and anti-AI artists.
“This is a huge victory for AI filmmakers across the world,” Nem Perez, one of the creators of the AI generated Terminator 2 remake, wrote in a post on X. “The Copyright Office has officially declared what I’ve been preaching for so long. Work that has been manipulated and transformed by humans is indeed copyrightable, even if the tools used were rooted in AI. This is a big step in the right direction. Let’s move forward and continue breaking boundaries.”
3D animator Robert William Bradshaw shared a similar sentiment in an X post: “This marks a historic victory for creators, solidifying the legitimacy of AI-assisted artistry and innovation. The doors have officially opened for artists, writers, filmmakers and visionaries leveraging AI to protect and own their creative works. This is a monumental step toward securing intellectual property rights in the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence.”
The future of copyright in the AI era
While this report confirms that AI can be used in copyrightable works, the debate over AI authorship is far from over. Courts and policymakers may still face challenges as AI models advance, and future clarifications or legislative updates may be necessary.
For now, the key takeaway is simple: AI can be a tool for creative works, but human authorship is still required to claim copyright.
Published by: Carl Franzen
