Report: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 Copyrightability Report
The AI Authorship Dilemma: The US Copyright Office Draws the Line on Generative Content
The rise of powerful generative AI tools—from high-resolution image generators to sophisticated language models—has sparked a massive debate over who actually owns the resulting creations. Is the prompt engineer the author? Is the AI itself a co-creator? Or does the century-old standard of “human authorship” still prevail?
In January 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) delivered its definitive answer in Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability Report. This report, a foundational piece of policy guidance, clarifies the legal boundaries of creativity in the age of algorithms. For tech developers, content creators, and legal professionals, this document confirms that despite exponential technological advancement, human intentionality remains the cornerstone of copyright law.
The USCO’s analysis, informed by over 10,000 public comments, concludes that current copyright law is largely sufficient to handle AI-generated content, removing the immediate urgency for new legislation.
Key Takeaways from the Copyrightability Report
The USCO delivered several critical conclusions that immediately impact how generative content is protected and registered:
- The Human Requirement Stands: Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material. Works must demonstrate sufficient human control over the expressive elements to qualify for protection.
- Prompts Are Insufficient: Based on current technology, text prompts alone do not provide sufficient control or original expression to constitute human authorship over the final output.
- Assistive Use is Acceptable: When AI acts merely as a tool (like Photoshop or a synthesizer) to assist a human author, copyright protection for the final work is unaffected.
- Modification and Arrangement Are Protected: Humans can claim copyright in their original selection, coordination, arrangement, or creative modification of AI-generated materials.
- No Legislative Change Recommended: The Office believes questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, making the case for new statutory protections (or a separate sui generis right) unnecessary for now.
The Fine Line: Control Over Expressive Elements
The central theme of the report is human control. The USCO emphasizes that copyright protects the original expression created by a human author. This standard helps draw a practical line between AI used as a tool and AI standing in for human creativity.
The "Black Box" Problem of Prompting
Perhaps the most significant finding for the typical generative AI user concerns prompts. The report explicitly states that simple text prompts—even complex ones resulting from "prompt engineering"—do not alone grant the user authorship rights over the output.
Why? The USCO notes that many generative AI systems operate like a "black box." Users cannot reliably predict the output based on the input; the AI’s complex models and billions of parameters determine the final expressive choices. Because the user lacks sufficient control over the resulting aesthetic and structural elements, the output lacks the necessary human touch to be considered "authored."
What Gets Protected?
If you use AI in your creative workflow, the report outlines three specific ways human contribution is recognized:
- Creative Selection and Arrangement: If a human uses AI to generate fifty images and then creatively selects, coordinates, and arranges three of those images into a final composition (like a graphic novel or a collage), the human owns the copyright in the selection and arrangement.
- Expressive Inputs: If a human provides their own pre-existing copyrighted artwork as an input (an "expressive input") and the AI transforms it, the human author retains copyright in the original expressive elements that are perceptible in the output.
- Creative Modification: If a human substantially modifies or edits the AI-generated output—painting over it, adding human-authored text, or manipulating the composition—the human holds copyright in the new, original material added to the AI base.
In essence, the USCO is registering the human’s "authorship," not the machine's generation.
Policy and International Trends
The report also addressed arguments for legislative change, such as offering protections to incentivize AI development or support creators with disabilities. The USCO found these arguments unconvincing, concluding that copyright’s primary goal—to incentivize human creativity—is best served by maintaining the human authorship requirement.
While acknowledging international discussions, particularly in systems that may recognize the "first owner" of AI content differently, the report stresses that the U.S. constitutional framework demanding originality rooted in human intellect is non-negotiable.
Conclusion: The Future is Collaboratively Copyrightable
The US Copyright Office's 2025 report provides crucial clarity, reinforcing the principle that AI is a tool, not an author. For creators embracing generative technology, the message is clear: the path to legal protection lies in active, creative control. Utilizing AI as an assistant to enhance human ingenuity is encouraged, but outsourcing the expressive core of a work to an algorithm will leave the resulting output in the public domain.
As AI systems continue to evolve, the USCO pledges to monitor changes. But for the foreseeable future, the creator remains firmly in the driver’s seat.
***
Download the Full Report
To dive deeper into the legal analysis of prompts, expressive inputs, and international approaches, you can download the full 52-page report here:
Download: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability Report (January 2025)