![handle is hein.crs/goveloy0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional_______
Research Service
Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Copyright Law
Updated May 9, 2023
Recent innovations in artificial intelligence (Al) are raising new questions about how copyright law
principles such as authorship, infringement, and fair use will apply to content created or used by Al. So-
called generative Al computer programs-such as Open AI's DALL-E 2 and ChatGPT programs,
Stability AI's Stable Diffusion program, and Midjourney's self-titled program-are able to generate new
images, texts, and other content (or outputs) in response to a user's textual prompts (or inputs). These
generative Al programs are trained to generate such outputs partly by exposing them to large quantities of
existing works such as writings, photos, paintings, and other artworks. This Legal Sidebar explores
questions that courts and the U.S. Copyright Office have begun to confront regarding whether the outputs
of generative Al programs are entitled to copyright protection, as well as how training and using these
programs might infringe copyrights in other works.
Copyright in Works Created with Generative Al
The widespread use of generative Al programs raises the question of who, if anyone, may hold the
copyright to content created using these programs, given that the AI's user, the AI's programmer, and the
Al program itself all play a role in the creation of these works.
Do AI Outputs Enjoy Copyright Protection?
The question of whether or not copyright protection may be afforded to Al outputs-such as images
created by DALL-E or texts created by ChatGPT-likely hinges at least partly on the concept of
authorship. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to secur[e] for limited Times to Authors . . . the
exclusive Right to their . .. Writings. Based on this authority, the Copyright Act affords copyright
protection to original works of authorship. Although the Constitution and Copyright Act do not
explicitly define who (or what) may be an author, the U.S. Copyright Office recognizes copyright only
in works created by a human being. Courts have likewise declined to extend copyright protection to
nonhuman authors. For example, appellate courts have held in various cases that a monkey who took a
series of photos lacked standing to sue under the Copyright Act; that some human creativity was required
to copyright a book purportedly inspired by celestial beings; and that a living garden could not be
copyrighted as it lacked a human author.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10922
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/goveloy0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most