Provide a summary of the following web Content, written in the voice of the original author. If there is anything controversial please highlight the controversy. If there is something surprising, unique, or clever, please highlight that as well. Content: Title: U.S. Copyright Office Issues Statement on Works Containing AI-Generated Material Site: Start Preamble AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Statement of policy. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office issues this statement of policy to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by the use of artificial intelligence technology. DATES: This statement of policy is effective March 16, 2023. Start Further Info FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at or telephone at 202-707-8350. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Copyright Office (the “Office”) is the Federal agency tasked with administering the copyright registration system, as well as advising Congress, other agencies, and the Federal judiciary on copyright and related matters. [] Because the Office has overseen copyright registration since its origins in 1870, it has developed substantial experience and expertise regarding “the distinction between copyrightable and noncopyrightable works.”  [] The Office Start Printed Page 16191 is empowered by the Copyright Act to establish the application used by applicants seeking registration of their copyrighted works. [] While the Act identifies certain minimum requirements, the Register may determine that additional information is necessary for the Office to evaluate the “existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.”  [] Because the Office receives roughly half a million applications for registration each year, it sees new trends in registration activity that may require modifying or expanding the information required to be disclosed on an application. One such recent development is the use of sophisticated artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies capable of producing expressive material. [] These technologies “train” on vast quantities of preexisting human-authored works and use inferences from that training to generate new content. Some systems operate in response to a user's textual instruction, called a “prompt.”  [] The resulting output may be textual, visual, or audio, and is determined by the AI based on its design and the material it has been trained on. These technologies, often described as “generative AI,” raise questions about whether the material they produce is protected by copyright, whether works consisting of both human-authored and AI-generated material may be registered, and what information should be provided to the Office by applicants seeking to register them. These are no longer hypothetical questions, as the Office is already receiving and examining applications for registration that claim copyright in AI-generated material. For example, in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.”  [] The application was denied because, based on the applicant's representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office's Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.”  [] More recently, the Office reviewed a registration for a work containing human-authored elements combined with AI-generated images. In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel  [] comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright. [] The Office has received other applications that have named AI technology as the author or co-author of the work or have included statements in the “Author Created” or “Note to Copyright Office” sections of the application indicating that the work was produced by or with the assistance of AI. Other applicants have not disclosed the inclusion of AI-generated material but have mentioned the names of AI technologies in the title of the work or the “acknowledgments” section of the deposit. Based on these developments, the Office concludes that public guidance is needed on the registration of works containing AI-generated content. This statement of policy describes how the Office applies copyright law's human authorship requirement to applications to register such works and provides guidance to applicants. The Office recognizes that AI-generated works implicate other copyright issues not addressed in this statement. It has launched an agency-wide initiative to delve into a wide range of these issues. Among other things, the Office intends to publish a notice of inquiry later this year seeking public input on additional legal and policy topics, including how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs. II. The Human Authorship Requirement In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans. The Office's registration policies and regulations reflect statutory and judicial guidance on this issue. In its leading case on authorship, the Supreme Court used language excluding non-humans in interpreting Congress's constitutional power to provide “authors” the exclusive right to their “writings.”  [] In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. [] The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”  [] The Court defined an “author” as “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.”  [] It repeatedly referred to such “authors” as human, describing authors as a class of “persons”  [] and a copyright as “the exclusive right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect.”  [] Federal appellate courts have reached a similar conclusion when interpreting the text of the Copyright Act, which provides copyright protection only for “works of authorship.”  [] The Ninth Circuit has held that a book containing words “authored by non-human spiritual beings” can only qualify for Start Printed Page 16192 copyright protection if there is “human selection and arrangement of the revelations.”  [] In another case, it held that a monkey cannot register a copyright in photos it captures with a camera because the Copyright Act refers to an author's “children,” “widow,” “grandchildren,” and “widower,”—terms that “all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals.”  [] Relying on these cases among others, the Office's existing registration guidance has long required that works be the product of human authorship. In the 1973 edition of the Office's Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, the Office warned that it would not register materials that did not “owe their origin to a human agent.”  [] The second edition of the Compendium, published in 1984, explained that the “term `authorship' implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.”  [] And in the current edition of the Compendium, the Office states that “to qualify as a work of `aut