The United States Copyright Office has released a watershed report on whether and how AI-generated outputs qualify for copyright protection under current United States copyright laws. Departing from its previous policy stance, the Copyright Office now states that AI-generated outputs are eligible for copyright protection but with a key caveat: the human author requirement remains intact.
The report contains four main highlights, covered in more detail below.
- AI-generated content will be copyrightable “in whole or in part” so long as “a human has been able to determine the expressive elements” the content contains.
- Human involvement is still essential for obtaining copyright protection—purely AI-generated content is not eligible for copyright protection.
- Content generated from using creative prompts alone “is unlikely” to meet the standard for copyright protection, but prompts themselves, “if sufficiently creative,” may be copyrightable.
- Current copyright laws are sufficient to address AI as a new technology
AI-Generated Output Eligible for Copyright Protection
The Copyright Office concludes that, “in many circumstances these [AI-generated] outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain.” The Copyright Office points to AI systems that allow users to exert control over the selection and placement of individual creative elements. As an example, it illustrates an editing process offered by Midjourney:

Although the Copyright Office will still decide on copyright protection on a case-by-case basis, people using AI tools now have a green light to seek protection for outputs if the AI tool “allow[s] users to exert control over the selection, arrangement, and content of the final output.”
Human Authorship is (Still) Essential for Copyright Protection
The Copyright Office endorsed the long-held view that copyright protection extends only to human creators, reinforcing a 2023 federal court ruling that an AI-generated image, created with no human involvement, is ineligible for copyright protection. The report reaffirms that content wholly generated by AI is not copyrightable. It also provides, however, that if a human contributes creatively to an AI-generated work—whether through selection, arrangement, or modification—those human elements may receive protection. Assessing authorship will depend on whether the human’s role involved original expression or mere instructions to an AI system, and the Copyright Office will decide these issues on a case-by-case basis.
The Key Role of Prompts in AI-Generated Content
The report details the role of text-based prompts that humans use to guide AI systems. The office acknowledged that prompts themselves, if sufficiently detailed and specific, could qualify for copyright protection, but it clarified that simple or generic prompts (such as “a cartoon spaceship”) likely do not. The report provides that even when prompts are detailed, the unpredictability of AI outputs presents challenges. The Copyright Office reasoned that because AI models operate as “black boxes” and often produce different results for the same prompt, it is difficult to establish a direct human-to-output connection akin to traditional authorship. The report concludes that while prompts themselves may sometimes be copyrightable if they demonstrate originality, the resulting AI-generated content will generally not qualify unless the user exerts substantial creative control over the expressive elements.
Current Copyright Laws Absolve any Need for Legislative Change
Some commenters advocated for new legal protections tailored specifically to AI-generated content, arguing that extending copyright to AI-assisted works could incentivize creativity. Others warned that broad copyrightability for AI outputs could undermine incentives for human authorship.
The Copyright Office ultimately concludes that existing law is well suited to address AI-related copyright issues. It maintains that AI should be treated as a tool rather than an author and that any modifications to copyright law should be carefully considered before implementation. While the Copyright Office acknowledges the need for ongoing monitoring as technology evolves, it does not recommend legislative change at this time.
Conclusion
Moving forward, the Office will continue to refine its guidance and assess the legal implications of AI advancements. But now creators and AI developers have more precise guidance on how to seek copyright protection for AI-generated output.
Recommendations
- Keep a log of how someone uses an AI tool to create and edit AI-generated output.
- Focus on using AI tools that allow users to exert control over the selection, arrangement, and content of the final output.
- Be diligent about explaining to the Copyright Office how AI was used in the process.
Whether AI-generated outputs infringe on copyrights is still a wide-open question.