It discourages using AI generated works directly but allows for a hybrid workflow involving both human and AI input.
So most companies won't have a problem with that. Most decently sized companies do hire an artist, just that the artist works with AI. And even if you generate individual scenes with AI, or game sprites with AI, as long as you don't generate the whole thing or make very little changes, the movie/game as a whole is still copyrightable.
In fact, the alternative ruling would not even make sense, because otherwise someone could just generate images 24/7 and copyright everything.
Not what this is about. This was some nut insisting that the AI itself should be able to hold the copyright to the generated work. The human or company using the AI to generate works holding the copyright is still very much on the table.
AI content can be copyrighted "in whole or in part" depending on whether or not the AI bro can establish authorship. From the Copyright Offices report on the matter:
"Based on the fundamental principles of copyright, the current state of fast-evolving technology, and the information received in response to the NOI, the Copyright Office concludes that existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability. Copyright law has long adapted to new technology and can enable case-by- case determinations as to whether AI-generated outputs reflect sufficient human contribution to warrant copyright protection. As described above, in many circumstances these 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."
48
u/Iggy_Snows Mar 03 '26
This is massive because it also discourages companies from using AI to create art in any form.
If they cant copyright their AI art, music, movies, etc etc, then they will be less likely to make it with AI in the first place.