Copyright in the AI Era: Analysis and Outlook on U.S. Copyright Office Trends

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), especially generative AI technology, is causing significant changes in how content is created, distributed, and consumed. These changes pose new challenges to existing legal systems, especially copyright law. In response, the U.S. Copyright Office is conducting research to clarify the complex relationship between AI and copyright, seeking a balance between technological advancement and protecting creators' rights, and is releasing related results sequentially. This will serve as an important reference for setting future global copyright policy directions.

At Pine IP Firm, we comprehensively analyze the official report from the U.S. Copyright Office and the outlook on key issues to be announced, aiming to provide insights into the current status and future of the copyright environment in the AI era, and to provide relevant information and analysis to help our companies and creators effectively respond to the changing environment.

1. The Digital Replica Issue

The U.S. Copyright Office's primary focus was the sophisticated replication of an individual's voice or appearance using AI technology—the issue of 'digital replicas.' Cases of misuse such as celebrity voice imitation audio sources, political voice forgery, celebrity image abuse, financial fraud, and deepfake pornography already cause serious social problems.

The Copyright Office determined that existing legal frameworks—such as state-specific privacy, publicity rights, federal copyright laws, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, and the Lanham Act—were insufficient to effectively address these issues. Key limitations identified include differences in protection levels between states, oversight of non-commercial damages, jurisdictional issues, and legal delays that cannot keep pace with technological advancements.

Accordingly, the Copyright Office emphasized the need for new federal legislation and presented the following specific directions.

• Protected by: Not only celebrities but all individuals are included as protected subjects.
• Regulatory Targets: The creation and distribution of realistic digital replicas themselves at a level that is difficult to distinguish from real people is set as the main regulatory target.
• Infringement: Focusing on the distribution of unauthorized reproductions, transmission, performance, exhibition, or other public use (regardless of commercial purpose).
• Liability criteria: Establishing a standard for holding the actor responsible when they 'actually know' that the replica is a replica of a specific individual and not yet licensed. For Aid/Abettor of Illegal Acts Secondary Liability Application. For Online Service Providers (OSPs) Safe Harbor Disclaimer Arrangements (e.g., notification and removal systems).
• Rights Exercise and Restrictions: Allowing income generation through individual licensing permissions, but prohibiting full assignment of the rights themselves. Establishing additional safeguards for exercising minor rights.
• Harmony with freedom of expression: Instead of a comprehensive disclaimer, Balancing Framework Recommendation for adopting the method.
• Remedies: Monetary damages (including actual and statutory damages) and injunctive relief guaranteed. Support for substantive rights relief through regulations on attorney fee compensation and other means. For certain malicious acts (e.g., sexual deepfakes) Criminal punishment Review suggestions.
• Relationship with existing state laws: Federal law replaces all state laws Full Preemption Avoid it. Federal law sets the minimum protection standard (floor) and allows additional protection for each state. Complementary relationship Establishment proposal. Raising the need to clarify that Section 114(b) of the Copyright Act (prohibition of copying of phonograms) does not interfere with the application of laws related to voice reproductions.

2. Copyright of AI-Generated Works: Reaffirming the 'Human Author' Principle

Whether AI-generated content is copyrighted is another major issue in discussions about AI copyright. In response, the U.S. Copyright Office stated that the fundamental principles of copyright law 'Human authorship' The requirements were reiterated and clear criteria were presented.

• AI as an auxiliary tool: When a human creator uses AI as an assistive tool for creative expression, the use of AI itself does not deny the copyright of the output. The key question is whether AI functioned as a tool to carry out human creative instructions.
• Human creative contribution is essential: Works autonomously generated by AI without human intervention or control, or if human contributions do not meet the minimum creative standards required by copyright law, cannot be protected by copyright. This is because AI cannot be a legal rights holder.
• Limitations of simple prompt input: Considering the current level of technology, simply text Enter the promptIt was determined that it is difficult to claim copyright over AI-generated outputs based solely on such actions. Prompts correspond to ideas or instructions, and the final expression implementation largely depends on internal processing within AI systems, making it difficult to see it as sufficient human control or an original contribution of expression.
• Recognition of additional human creative acts: A human author can provide their own work (e.g., sketch, melody) as expressive input to the AI system, or modify it by using specific AI-generated outputs. Creatively select, arrange, and combineor based on AI-generated outputs, Significant revision and processingand then add a new expression, Only for the part of human creative contribution Copyright protection available. (However, the AI-generated part itself is not copyrighted.)
• Artistic style imitation: They maintain the position that imitating abstract 'styles' such as a particular artist's style is difficult to directly protect under the principle of the idea and expression dichotomy in copyright law. Trademark Act, Unfair Competition Prevention Act, Publicity Rights, etc. Seeking remedies through different legal systemsIt is deemed more appropriate and does not recommend separate legislation to protect the style.
• Maintaining current laws: Determining the copyright status of AI-generated works Current Copyright Law Principles and InterpretationThe Copyright Office's position is that separate legislation or the creation of new rights (sui generis right) for AI creations themselves are unnecessary at this point and may hinder human motivation to create.

3. AI Training Data, Licensing, and Accountability

In addition to regulations on digital reproductions and copyright issues of AI-generated works, the main issues that the U.S. Copyright Office will address going forward are Legitimacy of using works for AI model training, practical licensing solutions, and the issue of responsibility distribution in cases of copyright infringementThat's it. This marks a point where a balance is needed between the advancement of the AI industry and the sustainability of the creative ecosystem.

• AI Training Data and Fair Use: The main issues are expected to be whether unauthorized copying of a work to train an AI model constitutes copyright infringement or whether it can be permitted as 'fair use.' The Copyright Office recognizes the validity of both parties' claims and argues that the training methods of individual AI models, the nature and quantity of the works used, and market impact are determined by specific facts. Case Judgmentis needed, and eventually, Judicial Precedents Accumulatedis highly likely to take a cautious stance, believing that standards will be established through this process. It is expected that the matter will be left to interpretation of the current law rather than immediate legislative resolution.
• Licensing: Necessity and Practical Barriers: Amid the legal uncertainty of fair use, effective and scalable The Need to Establish Licensing MechanismsThis will be highlighted. The Copyright Office also acknowledges the necessity but issues such as the vast scale of training data, difficulties in identifying and negotiating rights holders, lack of valuation criteria, and cross-border characteristics, Significant practical difficultiesIt is expected to point out that there is a certain existence. We are reviewing various models such as utilizing Copyright Centralized Management Organizations (CMOs), expanded Centralized Control Licenses (ECLs), and opt-out approaches, but instead of hasty conclusions, Calls for ongoing research and discussion on feasible licensing measuresIt appears to be the case.
• Responsibilities: Developers, users, platforms: Attribution of liability in cases of copyright infringement caused by AI training processes or generated products is also an important review issue. The Copyright Office Existing Copyright Law Principles of Direct Infringement and Secondary Liabilityis expected to be applied as the basic stance. In other words, responsibility should be determined by comprehensively considering whether the developer was aware of the system design/deployment, the user's intention and usage method, the developer's or platform provider's control authority, and financial interests. In particular, existing AI platform service providers Whether the online service provider liability limitation regulation applies or the need for new regulations/interpretation standardsIt is expected that in-depth review and clarification will be emphasized.

Conclusion

Recent trends from the U.S. Copyright Office demonstrate efforts to find a balance in response to changes in AI technology while maintaining the fundamental values of the copyright system without overly restricting technological advancement. While the need for regulatory frameworks is emphasized by calling for specific legislation for digital replicas, the copyright of AI-generated works is approached cautiously within existing legal principles, and issues related to AI training data are pursued flexibly, respecting judicial judgment and social consensus processes, and exploring various solutions such as licensing.

AI technology is continuously evolving, and related legal and policy discussions will also continue. Our Pine IP Firm closely monitors and analyzes these changes, providing timely services based on our expertise to help our companies and creators prepare for risks that may arise in the complex copyright environment of the AI era, effectively protect intellectual property rights, and seek new opportunities. If you have any questions about AI-related copyright issues, please feel free to consult our experts for solutions.