Here’s the bullet point summary of findings from page iii for anyone who doesn’t want to go digging through the PDF:
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
- Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
- The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
- Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
- Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
- Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
- Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
- Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
- The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.
The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
So far nothing new. Does the pdf say anything about the training data?
The report details how they think pretty much everything but straight prompts is eligible for some kind of protection. Clarification that was much needed before. Even prompting has been upgraded from “not eligible” to “probably not eligible” with them stating that they will likely be eligible in the future when prompting alone provides more control.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This Report by the U.S. Copyright Office addresses the legal and policy issues related to artificial intelligence (“AI”) and copyright, as outlined in the Office’s August 2023 Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”).
The Report will be published in several Parts, each one addressing a different topic. This Part addresses the copyrightability of works created using generative AI. The first Part, published in 2024, addresses the topic of digital replicas—the use of digital technology to realistically replicate an individual’s voice or appearance. A subsequent part will turn to the training of AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and allocation of any liability. To learn more, visit www.copyright.gov/ai.
Emphasis mine. So, probably have to wait for Part 3 or 4 or whatever.
Doesn’t matter what they say due to Chevron. Is whoever has the judge in their pocket that wins.
