Us copyright office states ai-generated images cannot be copyrighted

In a significant ruling for artists and technology developers alike, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has asserted that works fully generated by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be copyrighted. This announcement, made on Wednesday, confirms that while AI can play a role in producing creative outputs, it does not qualify the resulting works for copyright under current American laws. Artists may find their AI-generated creations able to compete for awards, such as those at state fairs, but the lack of legal protection creates a precarious environment for creators who rely heavily on AI technology.

The USCO’s report delves into how AI-generated content—whether it be video, images, or text—will be interpreted in the eyes of existing copyright regulations. The guidance states that despite the novelty of generative AI technologies, they largely fall within the established jurisdiction of copyright laws. Therefore, no new legislation is deemed necessary to govern these AI outputs, while protections for creators remain scant.

Historically, courts have maintained that AI systems themselves are ineligible for copyright ownership. This principle was underscored in the 1989 Supreme Court case Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, which established that copyright can only be claimed by a human author who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression. The recent guidance echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that mere prompts given to an AI do not equate to authorship.

The report stresses that AI’s unpredictable outputs mean that the control exerted by users is insufficient to warrant authorship. As clarified, regardless of the complexity involved in crafting an AI prompt, the final piece remains a reflection of the AI’s interpretation rather than a user’s creative expression. Consequently, the report highlights human control, or the lack thereof, as a determining factor in the ownership of such outputs.

Nevertheless, the USCO does outline circumstances where copyright protection may still apply. For instance, in the upcoming feature film “Here” by director Robert Zemeckis, which utilizes generative technologies for de-aging effects featuring actors like Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, the film itself has been copyrighted. The differentiation lies in the fact that in this scenario, AI acts as a tool under the guidance of human creators, rather than functioning as an autonomous author.

Similarly, projects incorporating AI-generated special effects or digital artwork can still obtain copyright status if the product reflects significant human input or modification. While the AI components cannot be copyrighted on their own, a piece that embodies “perceptible human expression” could still merit protection.

This issue of authorship is not new to the USCO. Dating back to 1965, discussions surrounding the role of machines in creativity have been prevalent as digital technology advanced. Former Register of Copyrights, Abraham Kaminstein, noted concerns over whether computers simply assisted human authors or if they produced works independently.

The USCO’s recent guidance implies that as AI technologies evolve and potentially offer users greater control over the creative process, the nature of copyright law may need re-evaluation. The report suggests that while current capabilities of AI do not meet the necessary threshold of human control, the future may see shifts as AI systems develop.

This increasingly complex landscape is exemplified by a new initiative from the AI startup Perplexity AI. Recently, the company announced plans to launch advertisements integrated within its chatbot responses. Rather than conventional ads, these will appear as sponsored follow-up questions and media related to user queries, allowing advertisers to reach consumers directly through the platform.

In conjunction with this advertising initiative, Perplexity AI has also rolled out a native app for Mac users. Designed to enhance user experience, this app facilitates a range of features including advanced guided AI searches and the ability to engage with both text and voice prompts. Positioning itself as an AI-driven alternative to traditional search engines, Perplexity’s approach aims to create a more conversational and contextual search experience for users.

As the technological landscape continues to evolve, the implications of AI in creative spaces and the corresponding legal frameworks are likely to remain hot topics for discussion. The USCO’s guidelines bring clarity to the current state of copyright with respect to AI-generated works, yet also highlight the legal complexities faced by artists navigating this rapidly advancing field. The future of creativity, augmented by AI, remains a promising but challenging frontier for copyright and intellectual property rights.