Copyright Office Says AI-Generated Content with Human Contribution Can Be Copyrighted

VentureBeat reports that the US Copyright Office has clarified that AI-generated content can receive copyright protection if a human substantially contributes to or modifies it.

The update, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability,” reinforces the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright law but reassures businesses that AI-generated content, including branding and media, can still be protected under intellectual property laws.

The report follows controversies, such as rescinding copyright protection for Kris Kashtanova’s AI-assisted graphic novel. It confirms that copyright applies only when a human demonstrates sufficient creative control.

Works qualify if they incorporate human-authored content, significantly modify AI outputs, or include expressive human contributions. The Office also distinguishes between AI-assisted refinement, which maintains copyright eligibility, and AI-generated outputs created solely from prompts, which do not qualify.

After reviewing extensive public feedback, the Copyright Office found no need for immediate legislative changes but will continue monitoring developments.

AI filmmakers and creatives widely praised the decision, which they see as a victory for AI-assisted artistry. However, as AI models evolve, the debate over AI authorship and intellectual property rights is expected to continue in legal and policy discussions.

The Copyright Office will monitor technological developments and legal decisions to determine if future changes are warranted. Shira Perlmutter, Director of the US Copyright Office, commented:

“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright. 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.”