Support IPWatchdog with an individual sponsorship: Click here
“While we appreciate the novel nature of the subject matter, the absence of these reports creates uncertainty for industries that are already grappling with AI-related challenges and hinders lawmakers’ ability to craft effective policy.” – Rep. Steil
Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI) sent a letter On Tuesday, October 29, to the U.S. Copyright Office asking for an update on the Office’s multi-part report on the impact of artificial inteliigence (AI) on copyright law, which Steil said is no longer on track to be published by its stated target dates.
The Committee on House Administration has statutory oversight authority over the Library of Congress and thus the U.S. Copyright Office.
Part one of the Office’s report was published in July and recommended legislation to create a right for individuals to control digital replicas of their voice and likeness. On the same day that the Office issued the report, a group of senators introduced a bill—the “NO FAKES Act”—that would establish a federal property right for every individual in their own voice and likeness. It was not in response to or conjunction with the Office’s report, however.
The report was issued nearly a year after the agency published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking public input on the intersection of U.S. copyright law and AI systems. In response, the Copyright Office received about 1,000 comments related to digital replicas (of more than 10,000 total comments submitted), 90% of which were filed by individuals and most of which advocated for the passage of a new federal law establishing remedies for the misappropriation of an individual’s likeness via digital replicas.
According to a Copyright Office press release, there are several more reports in the pipeline. “Forthcoming Parts will address the copyrightability of materials created in whole or in part by generative AI, the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and the allocation of any potential liability,” said the release.
Steil’s letter asked the Office to explain the delay in issuance of parts two and three, which Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter indicated in a recent oversight hearing would be published before the end of the summer and in the fall, respectively. He also asked that Perlmutter provide an update on the status of the reports within one week of receipt of the letter.
“The importance of these reports cannot be overstated,” Steil wrote, explaining that copyright owners are relying on the Office to provide clear guidance. “While we appreciate the novel nature of the subject matter, the absence of these reports creates uncertainty for industries that are already grappling with AI-related challenges and hinders lawmakers’ ability to craft effective policy,” the letter added.
The Copyright Office has been steeped in AI issues for several years now, kicking off with the well-known example of Stephen Thaler, who attempted to register a work made by his “Creativity Machine”—titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”—in 2018. On the application, Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the author of the work and indicated himself to be the claimant, with a transfer statement explaining he acquired ownership of the work because of his “ownership of the machine.” The Office ultimately rejected the application, but that fight is continuing in federal court today.
Even more recently, Jason Allen, the author of the two-dimensional digital artwork, titled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial,” which was rejected by the Office last year, filed a request for declaratory judgment with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asking the court to find that his work is eligible for copyright registration. The Office told Allen he must disclaim the AI-generated content, but Allen is arguing the time and effort he put into creating the work meets the originality standard.
The USCO announced a new statement of policy on “Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence” in March 2023. According to the policy, the Office will grant registrations containing AI-generated content if the work also contains enough human authorship to support copyright protection. Where AI-generated works also contain enough human authorship to support copyright protection, the Office will grant registration of “the human-authored aspects of the work,” but the AI-generated portions must be disclaimed and the use of AI tools disclosed.
During IPWatchdog’s LIVE 2024 program, Perlmutter told IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn that “hundreds” of registrations containing AI-generated content have been granted since the guidance.
She also said that AI “raises profound questions” and therefore “this is the conversation that’s going to go on for a long time. It’s an exciting time to be working in copyright, but a challenging time.”
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: jamesgroup
Image ID: 13472143
