Significant controversy exists in the details of additional copyright protections for AI generated works

Looking forward, the devil will be in the details as courts and creatives try to determine just how much human participation will be required in order to meet the human authorship requirement. Currently, the Copyright Office relies on applicant disclosures to identify AI-generated content, explaining that copyright applicants "have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author's contributions to the work." But in many instances (particularly as technology continues to evolve), this will not as straightforward as it sounds—how much will a human being need to have contributed on the input side, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in order to claim authorship over the resulting output? In addition to open questions related to output authorship and ownership, serious questions remain as to when the output of a GenAI tool can be found to be infringing on third-party works, as numerous lawsuits have already been filed alleging that GenAI tools have "scraped" and thus unlawfully digested and copied third-party works that are used to train the tool. Indeed, on August 30, 2023, and as part of the Copyright Office's ongoing AI Initiative, the Office published a notice of inquiry and request for comments on a variety of issues related to the intersection of copyright and AI, including "the use of copyrighted works to train AI models, the appropriate levels of transparency and disclosure with respect to the use of copyrighted works, and the legal status of AI generated outputs." The sets forth numerous specific AI-related questions for which the Copyright Office seeks comment, underscoring the significant challenges and uncertainty related to AI and copyright. The deadline for submitting comments to the Copyright Office is currently set for October 18, 2023.