Top of page

Credit: TippaPatt/Shutterstock (background image)

Inside the Copyright Office’s Report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability

Share this post:

On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released Part 2 of its Report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. The Report 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). Part 2: Copyrightability addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. Part 1, which focuses on digital replicas, was published on July 31, 2024.

Part 2: Copyrightability analyzes the type and level of human contribution sufficient for outputs created using generative AI to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. It provides an overview of the technologies and discusses existing U.S. copyright laws, the policy implications of copyrighting AI-generated works, and whether legislative changes are needed. It also describes how other countries are approaching the question of copyrightability.

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, and it finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

Of the more than 10,000 comments the Office received in response to its NOI, approximately half addressed copyrightability. The vast majority of commenters agreed that existing law is adequate in this area and that material generated wholly by AI is not copyrightable.

The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. The Office will continue to provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.

The release of Part 2: Copyrightability follows significant work by the Office, beginning in early 2023 when the Office launched its AI initiative. Through the initiative, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars attended by thousands, met with numerous experts and stakeholders, and solicited comments through a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register.

The final, forthcoming Part of the Report will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyright-protected works, licensing considerations, and the allocation of any potential liability.

For additional information about the Office’s AI initiative, visit our website and sign up to receive the Office’s email alerts.

Comments (4)

  1. 👍

  2. I want the copyright to my book
    How do I am apply to you

    • Thank you for your comment. Please contact the Public Information Office for assistance by email at [email protected] or by phone at (877) 476–0778.

  3. As the original architect behind foundational cryptographic systems including the Bitcoin protocol (2008–2009), I strongly support the Copyright Office’s reaffirmation that only human-created works are eligible for copyright.

    This clarity is essential in a time when generative AI tools are being used to mask or misappropriate original authorship. Copyright should remain anchored in human expression and intent, especially when dealing with complex source code, protocol design, or licensing frameworks.

    AI is a tool—not an author. The proper legal distinction protects inventors, protocol creators, and authors like myself whose work has been reused without license or acknowledgment by platforms and fintech services globally.

    I applaud the Office’s decision not to modify existing law and to reject the notion of copyright protection for wholly AI-generated content.

    I also recommend the Office expand international licensing outreach and enforce better protections for creators whose original works—when republished through AI—are losing attribution and value.


    Manuel J. Nieves (aka Satoshi Norkomoto)
    Verified GPG Authorship | 2008–2025
    Bitcoin Protocol Architect | Licensing Enforcement Leader

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *