Copyright Office Opens Public Input on Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works
The Copyright Office has launched a public inquiry to gather input on the copyright protection of works generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This move comes in response to recent court decisions that have raised questions about the level of human involvement required to qualify for copyright protection.
One of the main issues at hand is whether AI-generated works that lack human authorship should be eligible for copyright protection. In a recent case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, a district court denied copyright for an AI-generated work that had no human involvement. This decision left open the question of what level of human intervention would be necessary for future works to receive copyright protection.
In light of these developments, the Copyright Office has issued a Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, seeking public input on the scope and level of human authorship in copyright claims for works produced, in whole or in part, by generative AI.
The Copyright Office has received applications to register works containing AI-generated material, some of which attribute AI systems as authors or co-authors. Simultaneously, copyright owners have filed infringement claims against AI companies concerning the training process and outputs derived from generative AI systems.
The Notice of Inquiry specifically requests feedback from the public on various copyright issues related to generative AI. These include the use of copyrighted works to train AI models, transparency and disclosure requirements, the legal status of AI-generated outputs, and the treatment of outputs that mimic the personal attributes of human artists.
Furthermore, the Copyright Office is seeking information on the collection and curation of AI datasets, how these datasets are used to train AI models, and the sources of materials incorporated into the training process. It also aims to gather insights on whether permission and compensation should be required for including copyrighted works in AI training.
The Notice poses the important question of what threshold of human authorship should be demanded for copyright protection. Possible levels of authorship may include a substantial contribution, the conception and execution of traditional authorship elements by a human, the creation of more than 50% of the work by a human, a contribution exceeding de minimis, or the direction, training, or guidance of AI works by human authors.
The Copyright Office will be closely monitoring the comments received before providing further updates. Initial comments are due by October 18th, with the full range of responses expected by November 15th.
These efforts by the Copyright Office aim to address the complex legal and ethical challenges posed by AI-generated works. The input gathered from the public will contribute to shaping future policies and regulations concerning copyright in the age of artificial intelligence.
