U.S. Copyright Office rules AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted

The U.S. Copyright Office has confirmed that works created entirely by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection under current law. However, the office clarified that works combining human creativity with AI tools may still qualify for copyright, provided the human contribution is substantial.

The decision forms part of the “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence” report, which examines how copyright law applies to rapidly evolving AI technologies. According to the report, copyright protection remains tied to human authorship, meaning AI systems cannot be recognized as creators under existing legal frameworks.

For artists and producers working with AI tools, the ruling draws a clear distinction. If a producer uses AI-generated sounds and arranges them into an original composition, the arrangement itself may be copyrighted, while the individual AI-generated elements cannot.

In this context, AI functions as a creative tool rather than an author, similar to traditional production software or instruments used during the creative process.

The debate around AI authorship has been unfolding in courts for several years. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who argued that an AI system he created should be able to hold copyright over its own work. The decision effectively closed the door on recognizing AI systems as legal copyright holders.

Despite the clarification, major questions remain unresolved — particularly whether AI companies can legally train models on copyrighted music without permission or compensation. As generative AI continues to expand across creative industries, this issue is expected to remain a central legal battleground for artists, labels and technology companies alike.