AI-assisted works can get copyright with enough human creativity, says US copyright office; AP, January 29, 2025

 MATT O’BRIEN, AP; AI-assisted works can get copyright with enough human creativity, says US copyright office

"Artists can copyright works they made with the help of artificial intelligence, according to a new report by the U.S. Copyright Office that could further clear the way for the use of AI tools in Hollywood, the music industry and other creative fields.

The nation’s copyright office, which sits in the Library of Congress and is not part of the executive branch, receives about half a million copyright applications per year covering millions of individual works. It has increasingly been asked to register works that are AI-generated.

And while many of those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, the report issued Wednesday clarifies the office’s approach as one based on what the top U.S. copyright official describes as the “centrality of human creativity” in authoring a work that warrants copyright protections."

Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report; U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060, January 29, 2025

 U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060; Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This Part of the Report addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “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.”

In early 2023, the Copyright Office announced a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and AI. Since then, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars, met with experts and stakeholders, published a notice of inquiry seeking input from the public, and reviewed more than 10,000 responsive comments, which served to inform these conclusions.

The Report is being released in three Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and recommended federal legislation to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The final, forthcoming Part 3 will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.

As announced last year, the Office also plans to supplement its March 2023 registration guidance and update the relevant sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.

For more information about the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative, please visit the website."

Are A.I. Image Generators Violating Copyright Laws?; Smithsonian Magazine, January 24, 2023

Ella Feldman,  Smithsonian Magazine; Are A.I. Image Generators Violating Copyright Laws?

"Both lawsuits argue that by scraping the web for images, A.I. image generators unjustly rob artists, using their work without crediting or rewarding them...

​​In response to the artists’ lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stability AI says the company takes “these matters seriously,” and that “anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology and misunderstands the law,” per Reuters. Speaking with the Associated Press in December, before the lawsuits were filed, Midjourney CEO David Holz compared the process behind his image generating service to the process behind human creativity, which often entails drawing inspiration from other artists."

Into the Sparkly Heart of Zazzle’s Font War; Slate, January 24, 2023

HEATHER TAL MURPHY, Slate; Into the Sparkly Heart of Zazzle’s Font War

"In filings pushing to dismiss the suit, Zazzle blasted back that a font cannot be protected by copyright in the United States. Multiple lawyers verified this. Indeed, from a copyright standpoint, it’s irrelevant how beloved a font is, says Tyler Ochoa, a professor specializing in copyright law at Santa Clara University’s School of Law...

But here is where the case relates to the emerging debate around artificial intelligence. Laatz also argues that the company stole the Blooming Elegant Trio font software. Whenever we select a font, whether in Google Docs or Instagram stories, the application is relying on software to indicate not only what each letter looks like, but how those letters should relate to one another. Many designers draw each letter in a font-making tool and then allow that tool to generate the software for them, said Stacy Terry, a font designer in New Orleans. Still, as easy as that may sound, it took Terry six months of fine-tuning to create her first font.

“The output of an A.I. is not copyrightable,” said Mr. Ochoa, unless human creativity is combined with AI. Similarly here, you can protect font software by copyright, he said, but only if more than a minimal amount of human creativity, such as coding, played a role in producing it. So how do you define human creativity?

The answer, in this case, highlights the stark difference between the way the law and fellow creatives dole out credit to the imagination. Proving that Laatz played a key role will likely come down to proving that she wrote code by hand, said Christopher Sprigman, a professor at NYU Law and author of the book The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation. He points to an exchange that Zazzle lawyers included between Laatz and the United States Copyright Office in their motion to dismiss the case. The examiner asked her to clarify whether the program was “hand-coded by a human author,” because it could not be registered if it was generated by a font program. Laatz says she hand-coded the designs and instructions in the font data, but Zazzle’s lawyer cast doubt on this."