How to Navigate AI Copyright Issues

The U.S. Copyright Office has provided essential guidance regarding the registration of works containing material generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). With more artists thinking about using AI as a part of their creative process, this is a critical document for not only for music lawyers but also for music managers who are helping their clients navigate the use of AI in music. Here are the key takeaways from the Copyright Office's policy statement (full paper is attached below for those who are interested): 🎵 Human Authorship Requirement: Works exclusively generated by AI without human involvement do not qualify for copyright protection as "original works of authorship" must be human-created. 🎵 Significant Human Contribution: The use of AI-generated content that is significantly modified, arranged, or selected by a human artist may be eligible for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored parts of the work. 🎵 AI as a Tool: While AI is acknowledged as a valuable tool in the creative process, using AI does not confer authorship. The extent of creative control a human exercises over the work's output is the key factor in determining copyright eligibility. 🎵 Registration of Works with AI-generated Material: Applicants must disclose the use of AI-generated content in their copyright applications, distinguishing between human-created aspects and AI-generated content. 🎵 Correcting Prior Submissions: If a work containing AI-generated content has already been submitted without appropriate disclosure, it should be corrected to ensure the registration remains valid. 🎵 Consequences of Non-disclosure: Applicants who fail to disclose AI-generated content could face the cancellation of their registration or the registration could be disregarded in court during an infringement action. 🎵 Ongoing Monitoring: The Copyright Office continues to monitor developments in AI and copyright law, indicating the possibility of future guidance and adjustments to the policy. #musicindustry #musicbusiness #musicpublishing #copyrightlaw

🎆 I’m excited because the US Copyright Office has finally issued policy on AI and Copyright. Key points: 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗜𝘀 𝗘𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 AI-generated material without meaningful human involvement is not eligible for copyright protection. Copyright law is built on the idea that human creativity drives authorship. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿 Simple or general prompts guiding AI outputs typically don’t give the user copyright ownership of the result. Prompts may be protectable themselves if they are creative, but they rarely provide enough control over the output to qualify for authorship. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗲 When AI is used to support human creativity (e.g., brainstorming ideas, editing, or refining images), the human-created portions of the work can be protected by copyright. The distinction lies in whether the AI is merely assisting or fully generating the content. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 (𝗬𝗲𝘁) The Copyright Office concludes that existing laws are sufficient to address copyrightability questions and won’t require new legislation. However, it will continue monitoring AI advances. 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 While different countries are navigating AI and copyright in their own ways, many agree on the importance of defining and protecting human authorship amid AI proliferation. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁? The Copyright Office will update its registration guidelines and track technological progress to adapt copyright standards as needed. Read the report here: https://lnkd.in/gfDNgVs5 #AI #Copyright #WhoOwnsWhat #HumanInTheLoop

The era of “train now, ask forgiveness later” is over. The U.S. Copyright Office just made it official: The use of copyrighted content in AI training is no longer legally ambiguous - it’s becoming a matter of policy, provenance, and compliance. This report won’t end the lawsuits. But it reframes the battlefield. What it means for LLM developers: • The fair use defense is narrowing: “Courts are likely to find against fair use where licensing markets exist.” • The human analogy is rejected: “The Office does not view ingestion of massive datasets by a machine as equivalent to human learning.” • Memorization matters: “If models reproduce expressive elements of copyrighted works, this may exceed fair use.” • Licensing isn’t optional: “Voluntary licensing is likely to play a critical role in the development of AI training practices.” What it means for enterprises: • Risk now lives in the stack: “Users may be liable if they deploy a model trained on infringing content, even if they didn’t train it.” • Trust will be technical: “Provenance and transparency mechanisms may help reduce legal uncertainty.” • Safe adoption depends on traceability: “The ability to verify the source of training materials may be essential for downstream use.” Here’s the bigger shift: → Yesterday: Bigger models, faster answers → Today: Trusted models, traceable provenance → Tomorrow: Compliant models, legally survivable outputs We are entering the age of AI due diligence. In the future, compliance won’t slow you down. It will be what allows you to stay in the race.

🚨 Part 2 of the Copyright Office report on AI is out!! 🚨 Spoiler alert: Prompting alone ≠ copyrightable Today, the U.S. Copyright Office released the second of a three-part report around #ArtificialIntelligence. The first part focused on deepfakes, or digital replicas. This second part is focused on the big question surrounding the extent to which, if at all, #GenerativeAI output or works can be eligible for copyright protections. In a statement, Shira Perlmutter notes: “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.” Here are 5 key takeaways from this latest report: 1️⃣ Human Authorship is Essential – The report reaffirms that copyright protection in the U.S. requires human authorship. Works created entirely by AI, without meaningful human involvement, are not eligible for copyright protection. Courts and the Copyright Office have consistently upheld this principle. 2️⃣ Case-by-Case Analysis of AI-Assisted Works – While purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable, human-authored contributions within AI-assisted works may be protected. Each case must be analyzed individually to determine if the human contribution is sufficient to establish copyrightable authorship. 3️⃣ Prompts Alone Are Insufficient for Copyright – The report finds that inputting prompts into an AI system does not, by itself, establish authorship over the resulting output. Since AI models interpret and generate content in unpredictable ways, a user’s control over the output is often too indirect to qualify as authorship. 4️⃣ AI as an Assistive Tool Does Not Impact Copyrightability – The use of AI as a tool in the creative process does not disqualify a work from copyright protection. If a human makes expressive modifications to AI-generated content—such as selecting, arranging, or significantly altering it—those elements may be eligible for copyright. 5️⃣ No Need for Legislative Change – The Copyright Office concludes that existing copyright law is adequate to address AI-related copyrightability issues. It sees no immediate need for new legislation or sui generis protection for AI-generated works but will continue monitoring legal and technological developments. For those of us following in this space, the above highlights shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, and doesn’t deviate really at all from the guidance and public statements made by the USCO to date. I think a point of continuing confusion on the issue will surround what the USCO notes as “works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs.” But no doubt there is more to unpack on this point. #copyright #AI #GenAI #ownership #MachineLearning #USCO