After months of anticipation, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has published the second part of its three-part report on the copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI). Titled “Copyrightability,” this part focuses on whether AI-generated content is eligible for copyright protection in the U.S.

The key takeaway? AI-generated works can be eligible for copyright protection—if there is sufficient human involvement. This is a major development for content creators, artists, writers, and businesses using AI-powered tools like ChatGPT, MidJourney, or DALL·E. The report clarifies that while AI itself cannot be considered an author, a human who meaningfully contributes to the creative process can claim copyright protection.

A New Take on “Human Authorship”

For years, copyright law has stipulated that only human-created works are eligible for protection. The new report reaffirms this but also introduces a crucial distinction:

• If an AI model autonomously generates content with no (or minimal) human input, the resulting work is not copyrightable.
• However, if a human meaningfully contributes to shaping the output—through carefully crafted prompts, refinement, or editing—the work may qualify for copyright protection.
• The USCO analogizes this to joint authorship, where a work is copyright-eligible even if a single person is not responsible for creating every aspect of it.

This distinction sees AI as a tool, rather than a creator, with copyright eligibility hinging on the manner and extent to which a person uses this tool to guide, modify, or refine outputs.

Prompts Matter: The Role of Human Input

A key aspect of the report is how prompts influence copyrightability. The USCO reasons that simply inputting a generic or single-word prompt (e.g., typing “cat” into an AI image generator) is not enough to establish authorship. The report compares this to hiring an artist: just because a person commissions an artwork with a general vision does not make them the author.

However, more complex prompts, which carefully direct the AI’s creative process, could be considered a form of substantive creative contribution. Additionally, if a user combines an AI-generated output with their own original work, the parts of the output that are perceivable as human expression may be copyrightable. This is particularly relevant for creators using AI to enhance or expand upon their ideas.

Copyright Protection Through Modification and Arrangement

The USCO also highlights another pathway to copyright protection: modifying or arranging AI-generated content in a creative way.

For example:

• An AI-generated image by itself may not be copyrightable.
• However, a curated collection of AI-generated images or a story incorporating those images could be protected as a compilation.
• If a person significantly edits or transforms an AI-generated work, the modified parts could qualify for copyright.

This clarification opens up opportunities for creators to use AI as an assistive tool while still maintaining copyright over their work.

Implications for Businesses, Content Creators, and Legal Precedents

Here are some of the practical implications of the report for industries integrating AI into their workflows:

• Content Creators & Artists – Content Creators can use this report to inform how they use AI tools in the creation of their content to ensure copyright protection.
• Businesses & Brands – Companies leveraging AI-generated marketing materials or product designs can leverage this report in their business strategy to better ensure the protection of their intellectual property.
• Legal & Policy Developments – As AI-related copyright disputes arise, this report lays a foundation for legal arguments supporting AI-assisted but human-directed creativity.

The Road Ahead: Unanswered Questions

While this report clarifies key principles, it also raises new questions:

• How much human input is “enough” for copyright eligibility? Future legal cases will likely define this threshold.
• How will this impact AI-assisted collaborative works? Multiple people directing an AI tool in connection with the same project could introduce complex authorship issues.
• What about AI-generated content that is later edited? If an AI tool drafts a piece and a human makes minor modifications, does the entire work qualify for protection?

One thing is certain: AI is transforming creativity, and the USCO’s report signals a willingness to evolve with it. As AI tools become more sophisticated, understanding the fine line between machine-generated and human-guided content will be crucial.

The Copyright Office is currently working on the third part of its report, which will focus on the use of copyrighted works to train AI models—a topic that could have even bigger implications for the future of copyright law.

If you have questions about copyright or protecting your intellectual property, we can help!