Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University
The U.S. Copyright Office’s latest report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, provides critical insight into how AI-generated works fit—or don’t fit—within existing copyright law. The key takeaway is clear: for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must demonstrate human authorship. AI can be used as a tool, much like a camera or a digital editing program, but the final output must be shaped by human creativity to qualify for protection. “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.” The report reinforces the longstanding principle that copyright is designed to protect human creativity, not machine-generated content. This means that if an AI system independently generates an artwork, a piece of music, or a written work without meaningful human input, it is not copyrightable. However, if a human exercises creative control over an AI tool—such as selecting inputs, editing outputs, or structuring the composition in a way that reflects personal expression—the resulting work may qualify for copyright protection. This ruling has broad implications for industries that rely on AI to generate content, including publishing, music, design, and film production. Creators who incorporate AI into their workflows must ensure that they actively contribute to the final creative expression if they wish to secure copyright protection. This could mean curating datasets, fine-tuning prompts, or making substantial modifications to AI-generated outputs. For businesses, this means rethinking AI-driven content strategies. Fully automated content may not be protectable under copyright law, potentially impacting ownership rights and monetization strategies. On the other hand, companies that blend human creativity with AI assistance could maintain strong legal claims to their intellectual property. As generative AI tools become more sophisticated, expect ongoing legal and regulatory scrutiny. The Copyright Office’s stance suggests that future policy will likely continue to emphasize human authorship as the foundation of copyright protection. This raises important questions: How much human involvement is enough? Could AI-generated content be protected under alternative legal frameworks, such as database rights or contractual agreements? For now, businesses and creators using AI should take a cautious and strategic approach—ensuring human authorship is at the core of their creative process to secure legal protection. -s