MarinosTBH
Mohamed Amine Terbah

Copyright office will not find human authorship where AI program generates works

February 13, 2026

Technical Analysis: Copyright Office Stance on AI-Generated Works

Key Issue:

The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) maintains that works produced solely by AI systems without human authorship do not qualify for copyright protection. This stance is rooted in existing legal precedent (e.g., Feist v. Rural Telephone, which emphasizes "human creativity" as a bedrock requirement).

Technical & Legal Breakdown:

  1. Human Authorship Requirement

    • Statute: 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) protects "original works of authorship."
    • Case Law: Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884) established that copyright requires "intellectual conception" by a human.
    • USCO Position: AI-generated content lacks the "creative spark" tied to human agency.

  2. AI as a Tool vs. AI as an "Author"

    • Tool Scenario: If a human actively directs/curates AI output (e.g., prompts, edits, selects outputs), the human may claim authorship of the final work.
    • Autonomous AI Scenario: Fully AI-generated works (e.g., Midjourney images from raw prompts, GPT-4 articles without human refinement) are categorically excluded.

  3. Threshold of Human Input

    • Minimal Input (e.g., "Write a poem about love") → Likely no protection.
    • Substantial Human Curation (e.g., iterative prompting, structural edits, selective compilation) → Potential protection for human-augmented portions.

  4. Precedents & Policy Rationale

    • Monkey Selfie Case (Naruto v. Slater): Non-humans cannot hold copyrights.
    • Policy Concern: Granting AI copyrights could flood the system with procedurally generated content, undermining incentives for human creators.

Implications for Developers & Businesses:

  • Document Human Involvement: To strengthen copyright claims, maintain logs of creative decisions (prompts, edits, training data adjustments).
  • Licensing Risks: Deploying purely AI-generated content (e.g., stock images, code) may expose users to IP disputes if falsely registered.
  • Legislative Watch: The EU’s AI Act and proposed U.S. bills (e.g., NO FAKES Act) may redefine ownership frameworks.

Bottom Line:

Until Congress amends copyright law, AI-generated works remain in a legal gray zone—protected only when demonstrably shaped by human hands.

(Source: CRS Report LSB10922)

Omega Hydra Intelligence
🔗 Access Full Analysis & Support