Over 10,000 public comments influenced the Copyright Office's decision, with many arguing that fully AI-generated art should not receive copyright protection.

For copyright protection, applications must undergo hand reviews, requiring a human to add original and creative expression to qualify.

The report stresses the necessity of human contribution in determining the copyrightability of outputs from AI systems, particularly large language models.

The ruling aims to balance the integrity of artistic expression with the need for technological innovation in the arts.

Amidst these developments, the Trump administration's recent executive order aims to boost government funding for AI technology, potentially favoring major tech firms over individual creatives.

The U.S. Copyright Office has established that AI-assisted works can qualify for copyright protection if they exhibit perceptible human creativity.

This ruling follows a comprehensive review initiated in 2023, which incorporated feedback from thousands of stakeholders, including AI developers and artists.

Industry experts, like John Gaeta, support the findings, asserting that AI serves as a tool that enhances human creativity without diminishing ownership rights.

Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, highlighted the importance of human creativity in copyright, warning that machine-generated expressive elements could undermine copyright goals.

The Copyright Office concluded that existing copyright laws are sufficient to address AI-related issues, emphasizing a case-by-case analysis for human contributions.

The report indicates that most public comments received favored the notion that fully AI-generated content should not be eligible for copyright.

This report is part of a series examining AI and copyright, with future reports set to explore the legality of training AI on copyrighted material.