Please summarize the following letter:
February 23, 2024
The Honorable Chris Coons
Chair
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
United States Senate
218 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Thom Tillis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
United States Senate
113 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Darrell Issa
Chair
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
Property, and the Internet
United States House of Representatives
2108 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Henry C. “Hank” Johnson
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
Property, and the Internet
United States House of Representatives
2240 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senator Coons, Senator Tillis, Representative Issa, and Representative Johnson:
In December 2022, I sent a letter to Senator Coons and Senator Tillis outlining the
Copyright Office’s plans to address the copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence
(AI).1
 I write now to provide an update on the Office’s work and to inform you of our
planned next steps.
In March 2023, the Office announced a broad initiative to examine the copyright
implications of the current forms of generative AI. Although we had previously examined
the scope of copyright in works created using AI, the increasing sophistication and public
adoption of generative AI tools raised new questions about the process of training and the
legal status of the outputs. Our goal was to gather information from a full range of
knowledgeable and interested parties in order to produce a report to assist Congress, the
1 Letter from Kathi Vidal, Under Sec’y of Com. for Intell. Prop. and Dir., U.S. Pat. and Trademark Off., and
Shira Perlmutter, Reg. of Copyrights, to Sen. Chris Coons, Chair, and Sen. Thom Tillis, Ranking Member,
Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 12, 2022),
https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Letter-to-USPTO-USCO-on-National-Commission-on-AI1.pdf.
2
courts, and others in formulating policy in this area. In taking this initiative forward, we
are monitoring related work being done in other agencies, including the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Federal Trade Commission, and communicating with
them on an ongoing basis.
This letter summarizes the Office’s work so far and describes our agenda for the rest
of 2024, including the release of the report, updates to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright
Office Practices, and the publication of a proposed economic research agenda.
2023 ACTIVITIES
Over the past year, the Office has engaged in the following activities to explore the
copyright issues at stake and assist applicants for registration: (1) publishing a policy
statement in the Federal Register on how to register works incorporating AI-generated
content; (2) holding a series of public listening sessions; (3) hosting public webinars to
explain our registration guidance and discuss international considerations; (4) meeting with
multiple stakeholders; and (5) publishing a Notice of Inquiry soliciting public comments.
We have also established a dedicated webpage as a resource for those seeking information
about our AI initiative.2
I. Registration
A. Registration Guidance
On March 16, 2023, the Office published a policy statement providing guidance to
copyright applicants seeking to register works containing AI-generated material
(“Registration Guidance”).3 The Registration Guidance reiterated the core legal principle
that copyright protection in the United States requires human authorship. In the context of
generative AI, this means that “[i]f a work’s traditional elements of authorship were
produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register
it.”4 The Registration Guidance instructed applicants seeking to register works containing
more than de minimis AI-generated material to disclose that the work contains such material
and provide a brief explanation of the human author’s contributions.5
2 U.S. Copyright Off., Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, https://www.copyright.gov/ai/.
3 Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Materials Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88
Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-16/pdf/2023-05321.pdf.
4
Id. at 16192.
5
Id. at 16193. Whether a work reflects human authorship is, necessarily, a case-by-case analysis. The
Office has explained that the question is whether the AI material, standing on its own, would be
copyrightable if it were human-authored. If so, then a very brief statement disclosing that the work
includes AI material should be included in the application for registration. Id. at 16192–93.
3
The Office has taken steps to inform the public of its Registration Guidance,
including through a June 28, 2023 webinar6 and numerous presentations to creators and
copyright attorneys.7

B. Registration Decisions
The Office’s requirement of human authorship was upheld last year by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the court affirmed the
Office’s refusal to register a work of visual art that the applicant claimed was created
entirely by AI.8
 It agreed that “[h]uman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright”
and this “principle follows from the plain text of the Copyright Act” and “rests on centuries
of settled understanding.”9
 The case is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
Since the Registration Guidance was issued, the Office’s Registration Division has
examined hundreds of works that incorporate AI-generated material and has issued
registrations to well over 100 so far.
10
 Over the past year, the Office’s Review Board (the
body that issues final agency decisions on registration appeals) has twice upheld refusals to
register works created using generative AI.
11 In one case, the applicant refused to disclaim
the contribution of generative AI to the work.
12
 In the second case, the applicant had
uploaded his own photograph into an AI system and instructed the system to produce a
new version in the style of Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night.
13 The Review Board
6 U.S. Copyright Off., Webinar: Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-generated Content,
https://www.copyright.gov/events/ai-application-process/.
7 To date, and in addition to its popular webinar, the Office has provided an overview of its Registration
Guidance at over 60 events for the legal and creative communities, reaching thousands of people across
the country. This includes law school classes and symposia; bar association conferences; international
government-to-government and stakeholder workshops; and professional development events for
creators and their business and legal advisors. The Office has conducted further outreach to drive public
awareness at major conventions, such as the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and ImagingUSA,
reaching many more.
8 Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-CV-1564, 2023 WL 5333236, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023), appeal docketed No.
23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 18, 2023).
9
Id. at *4.
10 U.S. Copyright Off. Rev. Bd., Decision Affirming Refusal to Register SURYAST 4 n.3 (Dec. 11, 2023),
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/SURYAST.pdf. Other applications have
been rejected either because the applicant failed to follow the Office’s Registration Guidance or because
the work did not contain sufficient human authorship.
11 The Review Board is appointed by the Register and hears administrative appeals of copyright
registration decisions. Review Board decisions constitute final agency actions and are subject to judicial
review. See 37 C.F.R. § 202.5(f), (g); see also 5 U.S.C. § 704.
12 U.S. Copyright Off. Rev. Bd., Decision Affirming Refusal to Register Théâtre D’opéra Spatial 1 (Sept. 5,
2023), https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf.
13 U.S. Copyright Off. Rev. Bd., Decision Affirming Refusal to Register SURYAST 2 (Dec. 11, 2023)
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/SURYAST.pdf.
4
concluded that the resulting image lacked human authorship because the AI system, not the
applicant, was responsible for the expressive elements in the output.14
II. Public Events and Engagement
A. Listening Sessions
In April and May 2023, the Office held four public listening sessions on AI and
copyright. Each session focused on a different category of creative works: (i) literary works,
including print journalism and software; (ii) works of visual art; (iii) audiovisual works,
including video games; and (iv) musical works and sound recordings. Speakers included
artists and performers; copyright industries; academics; technology companies; music
streaming platforms; and representatives from various unions, guilds, and public interest
and trade groups. The events attracted record-breaking attendance, with more than 4,000
people joining live over the course of the four sessions (which are available for viewing on
our website, along with transcripts).
15
B. Webinars
In June and July 2023, the Office hosted two public webinars. The first provided
examples illustrating how the registration rules for works containing material created or
owned by a third party apply to works that incorporate AI-generated material.
16 The
second convened experts from different regions of the world to discuss how other countries
are addressing AI and copyright issues.
17 The webinars again broke attendance records for
Office events, each drawing nearly 2,000 live viewers.
C. Stakeholder Meetings
Throughout the spring and summer of 2023, the Office participated in meetings with
a wide array of stakeholders, including creative artists, trade associations and guilds, legal
14 Id. at 7. The Board noted that the applicant could seek to register his original photograph, but it was a
separate work from the AI-modified version. Id. at 8.
15 The listening sessions have received, collectively, over 4,200 views on YouTube to date. See U.S.
Copyright Off., Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, YOUTUBE, https://www.youtube.com/uscopyrightoffice.
16 The transcript and recording of the registration webinar are available at
https://www.copyright.gov/events/ai-application-process/. The recording has been viewed over 1,000
times on YouTube to date. See U.S. Copyright Off., Application Process for Registration of Works with Artificial
Intelligence-Generated Content, YOUTUBE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzlsx0hL0N8.
17 The transcript and recording of the international webinar are available at
https://www.copyright.gov/events/international-ai-copyright-webinar/. The recording has been viewed
over 2,300 times on YouTube to date. See U.S. Copyright Off., International Copyright Issues and Artificial
Intelligence, YOUTUBE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaUzkerRSdM.
5
and technical academics, and technology companies developing AI products. The meetings
helped us to identify topics and questions to investigate further.
III. Notice of Inquiry
In August 2023, the Office published a Notice of Inquiry (the “Notice”) seeking
comments on a broad spectrum of copyright law and policy issues arising from the
development and use of generative AI.18 Based on what we had learned through the
months of stakeholder discussions, listening sessions, and independent research, we posed
34 questions, with multiple sub-questions. The questions related to (1) the use of
copyrighted works to train AI models; (2) the copyrightability of material generated using
AI systems; (3) potential liability for any acts of infringement; and (4) the treatment of
generative AI outputs that imitate the identity or style of human artists.
The Notice attracted strong interest: we received over 10,000 written comments by
the December deadline. Commenters came from every U.S. state. They included awardwinning authors and actors, fanfiction authors, freelance artists, press publishers, legal
scholars, technology companies, videogame developers, sports leagues, and even a class of
middle school students. Reflecting global interest in the U.S. position, individuals from 66
other countries submitted comments.
We are now completing our review and evaluation of the comments.
NEXT STEPS
Over the coming months, the Office will issue a report in several sections analyzing
the issues and making recommendations as to any appropriate legislative or regulatory
action. The first section will focus on the use of AI to digitally replicate individuals’
appearances, voices, or other aspects of their personalities. It will discuss existing state
laws and examine arguments for specifically targeted federal protections. That section will
be published in the spring.
The second section, to be published in the summer, will address the copyrightability
of works incorporating AI-generated material. It will analyze U.S. law’s human authorship
requirement and its implementation by the Office in registration decisions, including how
to determine when AI-generated material can embody human authorship; survey
international practices; and assess the policy arguments with respect to copyright
protection for AI-generated material.
18 Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-08-30/pdf/2023-18624.pdf.
6
Later sections will turn to the legal implications of training AI models on
copyrighted works as well as the allocation of potential liability for AI-generated outputs
that may infringe. Those sections will be published as they are completed, with a goal of
finalizing the entire report by the end of the fiscal year.
Separately, the Office will issue an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office
Practices, the administrative manual for registration. The update will include further
guidance and examples relating to the registration of works incorporating AI-generated
material. As is our standard practice, we will publish a draft subject to a notice-and-publiccomment process.
In addition, the Office has brought together a group of government and academic
economists to discuss the economic aspects of the intersection of copyright and AI. Later
this year we will publish a report containing the group’s proposed research agenda for
assessing policy in this area.
In recognition of the plans outlined by the White House in Executive Order 14110,
19
the Office continues to confer with the USPTO, keeping them apprised of our work. We
also remain active in AI-related litigation. As mentioned above, the decision in Thaler v.
Perlmutter, upholding the Office’s application of copyright’s human authorship
requirement, is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And
we are monitoring the pending cases brought against the owners or developers of AI
systems based on the use of copyrighted works to train those systems.20
Finally, the Office continues to engage with congressional offices as they consider
these important issues. We have already provided technical assistance on several draft bills
19 Executive Order 14,110: Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,
§ 5.2(c)(iii), 88 Fed. Reg. 75191, 75207 (Oct. 30, 2023) (“[W]ithin 270 days of the date of this order or 180
days after the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress publishes its forthcoming AI
study that will address copyright issues raised by AI, whichever comes later, [the USPTO Director shall]
consult with the Director of the United States Copyright Office and issue recommendations to the
President on potential executive actions relating to copyright and AI. The recommendations shall
address any copyright and related issues discussed in the United States Copyright Office’s study,
including the scope of protection for works produced using AI and the treatment of copyrighted works in
AI training.”). The Office has regular meetings with the USPTO’s AI and Emerging Technologies
Working Group on AI-related matters.
20 See, e.g., Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 23-cv-01092 (M.D. Tenn.); Authors Guild v.
OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y.) (consolidated with Alter v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y.), and
Basbanes v. Microsoft Corporation, 24-cv-00084 (S.D.N.Y) for pretrial purposes); J.L. v. Alphabet Inc., 23-
cv-03440 (N.D. Cal.); Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal.) (consolidated with Chabon
v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 23-cv-04663 (N.D. Cal.), which was closed by the court upon consolidation);
(Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 23-cv-06663 (N.D. Cal.); Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., 23-
cv-0135 (D. Del.); Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 23-cv-0201 (N.D. Cal.).
7
and remain available as discussions progress. Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can
provide any additional information or assistance.
Respectfully,
Shira Perlmutter
Register of Copyrights and Director
U.S. Copyright Office