![handle is hein.crs/govenan0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional_______
R aesearch Servic0
Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Copyright Law
Updated September 29, 2023
Innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) 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 AI computer programs-such as Open AI's DALL-E 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 generative Al outputs
may be copyrighted and how generative Al 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.
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, holding 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.
A recent lawsuit challenged the human-authorship requirement in the context of works purportedly
authored by Al. In June 2022, Stephen Thaler sued the Copyright Office for denying his application to
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10922
CR3 Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Conaress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govenan0001&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