Officials Rule That AI Art Needs "Human Expression" for Copyrights
The U.S. Copyright Office draws the line, emphasizing “the nature and scope of human authorship.”
The U.S. Copyright Office has just ruled that AI art created with text prompts, or “purely AI-generated material,” cannot be copyrighted. The decision, detailed in a report published on January 29, offers some clarity in the murky legal territory surrounding AI within creative industries, emphasizing the dangers of “using AI as a stand-in for human creativity.”
The report stems from an ongoing investigation into AI-generated works which began in 2023, and considered over 10,000 contributions from the public – including artists, performers, directors and musicians. The report notes that “prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an A.I. system the authors of the output,” though works created using AI “assistance” are protected under copyright law, and even those works must be “analyzed on a case-by-case basis.” Nevertheless, the takeaway is clear: artworks must prove some semblance of non-text human presence in the creative process.
This decision recalls – and serves as the final jab in – the saga surrounding Jason Allen’s infamous Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, an AI-generated work that won first place in the “Digital Art” category at the Colorado State Fair in 2022 and sparked controversy in the art world. In October 2024, Allen sued the Copyright Office after his attempt to register his work was repeatedly denied, stating that others were “blatantly and repeatedly stealing” his work.
“Neither the use of A.I. as an assistive tool nor the incorporation of A.I.-generated content into a larger copyrightable work affects the availability of copyright protection for the work as a whole,” the report read. “But the capabilities of the latest generative A.I. technologies raise challenging questions about the nature and scope of human authorship.”
This decision sets the stage for the treatment of AI art and the concept of “authorship.” While the office will continue to “monitor technical and legal developments” related to AI art, it urges against major legislative change: “Because the copyrightability inquiry requires analysis of each work and the context of its creation, statutory language would be limited in its ability to provide brighter lines.”
