I joined @brianlfrye.bsky.social on his podcast to chat about the paper! 🎙️Listen now 👉

bsky.app/profile/bria...

Read more over on LinkedIn 👉 www.linkedin.com/posts/frankl...

I’d also add that it’s refreshing to see they are giving a little more guidance around human-driven use of gen AI tools and that it doesn’t immediately disqualify ownership protections.

Read more and download the full report over at Creator Economy Law!

creatoreconomylaw.com/is-ai-output...

I think a point of continuing confusion on the issue will surround what the USCO notes as “works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs.” But no doubt there is more to unpack on this point.

For those of us following in this space, the above highlights shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, and doesn’t deviate really at all from the guidance and public statements made by the USCO to date.

Here are 5 key takeaways from this latest report:

1️⃣ Human Authorship is Essential
2️⃣ Case-by-Case Analysis of AI-Assisted Works
3️⃣ Prompts Alone Are Insufficient for Copyright
4️⃣ AI as an Assistive Tool Does Not Impact Copyrightability
5️⃣ No Need for Legislative Change

“Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”

In a statement, Shira Perlmutter notes: “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. […]

Today, the U.S. Copyright Office released the second of a three-part report around #AI. Part 1 focused on digital replicas.

Part 2 is focused on the big question surrounding the extent to which, if at all, #GenerativeAI output or works can be eligible for copyright protections.

Thanks, Denise!

If you aren’t on LI, here are the pages of the exam.