The United States Copyright Office (USCO) is a federal agency within the Library of Congress that administers the national copyright registration system and provides policy advice to Congress. Its role includes examining applications for copyright registration, recording ownership documents, and maintaining public records of copyright claims. In the context of artificial intelligence, the Office has developed policies addressing whether works generated by AI systems can be protected under U.S. copyright law, centering on the requirement of human authorship.
The Office operates under the Copyright Act of 1976, which protects "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible medium. For AI-generated content, the key question is whether a machine can be considered an author. The USCO has consistently held that copyright protection requires human creativity, and works produced entirely by AI without human involvement do not qualify. However, works where a human provides sufficient creative input or selection may be eligible.
Historical Context
The Copyright Office traces its origins to the Copyright Act of 1790, which initially covered only books, maps, and charts, with claims recorded by district court clerks. In 1870, copyright functions were centralized in the Library of Congress, and the Office became a separate department on February 19, 1897, with Thorvald Solberg as the first register of copyrights. The 1909 Copyright Act expanded protection to additional work types, and the Copyright Act of 1976, effective January 1, 1978, lengthened copyright duration and broadened coverage, remaining the current law with amendments.
The Office moved to its present location in the James Madison Memorial Building in Washington, DC, during the 1970s. Its archives include the Copyright Card Catalog with nearly 45 million cards covering registrations from 1870 to 1977, plus an online database with over 16 million entries for later records.
Policy on AI-Generated Works
In 2023, the USCO issued guidance on works containing AI-generated material. The Office stated that copyright protection depends on whether the AI's output is the result of human authorship. For example, if a user provides a text prompt to a large language model and the model generates an image or text, the output itself may not be copyrightable because the machine, not the human, determines the expressive elements. However, if a human arranges, selects, or modifies the AI output in a sufficiently creative way, the resulting compilation or derivative work may qualify.
The Office has applied this standard in specific registration decisions. In 2022, it denied registration for a comic book containing AI-generated images, later granting limited protection for the text and arrangement but not the individual AI-generated images. The Office has also clarified that AI-assisted tools, such as those used for editing or enhancement, do not automatically disqualify a work if human creativity remains the driving force.
Human Authorship Requirement
The human authorship requirement stems from U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including the 1884 case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, which recognized photographs as copyrightable because they involved human creative choices. The USCO has extended this principle to AI, arguing that machines lack the legal capacity to be authors. This position aligns with the Office's view that copyright law is designed to incentivize human creativity, not machine output.
For works created with AI assistance, the Office evaluates the degree of human control. Factors include how much the user directs the AI, whether the user edits or revises the output, and whether the final work reflects the user's original conception. The Office has stated that merely entering a prompt is insufficient, as the AI's response is unpredictable and not directly controlled by the user.
Registration Procedures
Applicants seeking to register works containing AI-generated material must disclose the use of AI to the Office. The application should identify which portions are human-authored and which are AI-generated. Failure to disclose may result in refusal or cancellation of registration. The Office's Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices provides detailed guidance on these requirements, updated to address AI-related issues.
The Office also maintains a public database of registrations, searchable online, which helps title researchers and the public understand copyright ownership. As of 2025, the Office continues to review its policies in response to rapid advances in generative AI technologies, including neural networks and transformer models used by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.
International and Comparative Perspectives
The USCO's approach differs from some other jurisdictions. The European Union generally requires human authorship, while countries like the United Kingdom have provisions for computer-generated works with reduced protection. The Office has participated in international discussions, including at the World Intellectual Property Organization, to harmonize approaches to AI and copyright. However, no global consensus has emerged, and the USCO's policies remain specific to U.S. law.
The Office has also considered the implications of AI for machine learning training data, where copyrighted works are used to train models. This issue involves questions of fair use and licensing, which the Office has addressed in congressional testimony and policy reports.
Current Leadership and Operations
Shira Perlmutter has served as the 14th Register of Copyrights since October 26, 2020. In May 2025, President Donald Trump claimed to have dismissed Perlmutter and appointed Paul Perkins as acting register, but the position is an employee of Congress, not the executive branch. Courts have endorsed Perlmutter's claim to the role, and the dispute remains unresolved as of mid-2025. The Office continues its operations under Perlmutter's leadership, including its AI policy work.
The Office is open to the public by appointment, with services including the Public Information Office and Copyright Public Records Reading Room. It provides information through its website and the NewsNet subscription service, and it administers the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's designated agent list and the Copyright Royalty Board.
Future Directions
The USCO has signaled that its AI policies will evolve as technology develops. It has sought public comments on various AI-related questions, including whether AI-generated works should receive any protection and how to treat works that combine human and machine creativity. The Office has also examined the use of AI in the registration process itself, such as automated examination tools.
As of 2025, no final comprehensive rulemaking on AI-generated works has been issued, and the Office's guidance remains the primary reference. Stakeholders, including creators, technology companies, and legal scholars, continue to debate the appropriate balance between incentivizing innovation and protecting human creativity. The Office's decisions will likely shape the future of copyright for AI-generated content in the United States.