http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/us-copyright-office-issues-guidance-on.html
On 16 March 2023, the US Copyright Office (USCO) published the “Copyright registration guide: works containing
material generated by artificial intelligence”.
This is a short guide
containing a “statement of policy” aimed at clarifying the position of
the USCO regarding the examination and registration of works whose creation
implies Artificial Intelligence (AI). This publication is a follow up to the
several applications for registration of works generated by or through AI as
well as a recent decision of the USCO itself concerning the “Zarya of the
Dawn”, where some part of the works were generated by Midjourney (see IPKat
here).
The USCO underlines “human
authorship” requirement and explains that “the office will consider
whether the AI contributions are a result of the mechanical reproduction or
instead of an author’s own original mental conception, to which [the
author] gave visible form. The answer will depend on circumstances,
particularly on how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the
final work”.
In line with this, the
USCO distinguished the following situations:
i) The author gives simple instructions to AI. In
this case “the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register
it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human
and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the
“traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the
technology -not the human user. In this case “users do not exercise
ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate
material”.
ii) AI generated works are (re)elaborated by the
author. In such cases, “a work containing AI-generated material will also
contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example,
a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative
way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship. In
these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the
work, which are “independent of ” and do “not affect” the copyright status of
the AI-generated material itself”.
The USCO then specifies that the above
distinction does not prevent technological tools from being part of the
creative process, as authors have long used such tools to create their works or
to recast, transform or adapt their expressive authorship.
The above principles are in line with
the USCO’s Compendium of Practices and with another previous decision of
the USCO dated 14 February 2022 (commented by IPKat here).
Finally, the USCO
provides a guidance for applicants, who bear the duty to disclose the inclusion
of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a
brief explanation of the human author’s contribution to the work.
Picture courtesy of Elisa & Otto from Italy.
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).