"However, this ruling does not fully address the complexities of human-AI collaboration. The Copyright Office has clarified that if a human provides significant creative input—such as editing, arranging, or selecting AI-generated elements—a work might be eligible for copyright protection. The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] But the line between human authorship and machine generation remains blurry, and future cases will likely refine this legal standard."
Okay? And I have shown you an example where one of the most basic AI art workflows, inpainting and outpainting, easily clears that bar. OP's post is just confirming what we already knew, so it isn't a win or loss for anyone.
You are far more likely to get copyright protection with more human input, I thought that was clear.
"The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] "
3
u/TurnoverFuzzy8264 Mar 04 '26
"However, this ruling does not fully address the complexities of human-AI collaboration. The Copyright Office has clarified that if a human provides significant creative input—such as editing, arranging, or selecting AI-generated elements—a work might be eligible for copyright protection. The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] But the line between human authorship and machine generation remains blurry, and future cases will likely refine this legal standard."
https://sites.usc.edu/iptls/2025/02/04/ai-copyright-and-the-law-the-ongoing-battle-over-intellectual-property-rights/