{ "row": "copyright-office-ai", "entity": "copyright-office-ai", "address": "U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence", "addresses": [ { "address": "U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence", "slug": "u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101", "addr_id": "ADDR-4825e3919030", "obs_id": "OBS-84d5b496561b", "axn": "AXN:0B8A.CAPTURE.📋🏛️☀️🕔🗂️🚀" } ], "epoch": "2026-11-01", "type": "C (public entity on which the archive bears: the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative on copyright and artificial intelligence, its page, Report, guidance, decisions and briefs; an entity of the leesharks.com apparatus authorship census)", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "status": { "procedure": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10, #1726: equal case, ρ = extends, read from the leesharks.com authorship census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the entity and its rule (#195, #729, #194, #940); archive selected by D/R/O (D 28 candidates in 8 deposits, R 0, O 35 in 19; hop of 29 from #195 and #729), with the census record (35 claims) and the Capture Registry's findings, analysis, reading, title, query note, PER note and description (10 claims) ledgered as the archive's records of the entity; the field B in two pools, B_D seven cards (two refused) and B_R Wikipedia (no article; the redirect's target read), 62 field claims; composed 2026-11-01 by Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent", "ledger": "unaudited (§3.8: one extractor per ledger); field quotes 62/62 verified by script against saved text, the saved redirect wikitext, or the card text; archive quotes 69/69 verified against the registry, census.json and the deposit texts", "frozen": false, "breaches": [] }, "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10, #1726", "ledger": { "archive": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/copyright-office-ai/ledger-archive.json", "field": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/copyright-office-ai/field.json", "selection": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/traversal/copyright-office-ai/", "config": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/panel/configs/copyright-office-ai.json", "intake": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/copyright-office-ai-20261101/", "audit": null }, "ontology": { "composition": "equal", "composition_note": "equal-terms case (v0.10 §0.9, §4.1): one claim space; the field's and the archive's claims ordered together by the entity's dependency and by genealogy within each sense; nothing translated; held under P_coh: the notice's three dates (F7, F11, F28, F60), Thaler as copyright and as patent (F13, F59), the guidance as policy statement and as Rule (F10, LS-30, F62), the Register's rationale beside the catalog-moat reading (F23, O195-12), the Office's registrations under disclose-and-disclaim beside the forecast of concealment (F47, O195-09)", "case": { "value": "equal", "statement": "The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. The census record describes the initiative from its own page and Wikipedia and reads it, on the field's own object, as the legal register of #940's civil-name regime and the boundary where machine participation is attributed by subtraction (LS-24); #195 reads the same rule, guidance, decisions and case the field gives and adds senses on them: what Thaler settled, the control test, the abandoned instrument classification, the confession protocol and its forecast, the allocation, and two proposals, each with its stated limit (O195-01 to O195-17); #729 classes Part 2 (O729-01); #940 bears by class (O940-01 to O940-04). Where #195 contests a field claim (the Register's rationale, F23, against O195-12; the Office's registrations under disclose-and-disclaim, F47, against O195-09), both are composed under P_coh in the one ontology. No archive source contests what the entity is, and the field holds the ontology (a federal office's initiative and its rule): the witness case does not arise (§0.10).", "loci": [ { "dep": 195, "locus": "Abstract s1", "quote": "As of March 2, 2026, the human-authorship requirement is settled for works claimed to be generated without human authorship: the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in *Thaler v. Perlmutter* leaves intact the rule that an AI system cannot be a statutory author." }, { "dep": 195, "locus": "Part III ¶5 (The confession protocol) s2–4", "quote": "To register, the author must *identify and disclaim* the machine-touched portions — testify against their own authorship, enumerate the contaminated passages, and excise them under oath, on pain of total refusal (*Théâtre D'opéra Spatial*). Disclosure as such is a legitimate provenance interest; this paper's entire archive is built on declared provenance. But the regime couples disclosure to forfeiture: to identify is to lose." }, { "dep": 195, "locus": "Part IV ¶2 (The catalog moat) s3", "quote": "The human-authorship requirement, marketed as humanism, functions as a scarcity preserve for capital-in-copyright against the productivity of both living laborers." }, { "dep": 195, "locus": "Part V.1, proposed rule", "quote": "**Authorship subsists in the exercise of compositional judgment over a work's coming-into-being, without regard to the generative capacity or unpredictability of the instruments employed.**" }, { "dep": 940, "locus": "§1 ¶2 s1–4", "quote": "A civil name is the atomic unit of attribution across the systems that govern legitimacy in scholarly, literary, institutional, and platform-mediated production. Academic credentialing attaches to legal names. Publishing contracts attach to legal names. Copyright attaches to legal names." }, { "dep": "LS", "locus": "census.json rows[slug == 'copyright-office-ai'].ls_reading", "quote": "The archive reads it as the legal register of #940's civil-name regime (copyright attaching to legal names) and as the boundary where machine participation is attributed by subtraction: the machine's part is disclaimed and the human remainder is registered as the work's authorship." } ] }, "E_F": { "type": "C (public entity: a federal office's initiative on copyright and AI, its page and its documents)", "definition": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative launched March 16, 2023 on the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI (the scope of copyright in AI-generated works; the use of copyrighted materials in AI training), its page at copyright.gov/ai holding a Report in three Parts (digital replicas, July 31, 2024; copyrightability, January 29, 2025; generative AI training, pre-publication May 9, 2025, a final version to come), registration guidance (a policy statement, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190), a notice of inquiry (88 Fed. Reg. 59,942; over 10,000 comments; dated August 30, 2023 on the page, August 20 in the study page's prose), four decisions titled by work, and the briefs and decisions in Thaler v. Perlmutter and Allen v. Perlmutter; its rule that copyright requires human authorship, works entirely generated by AI uncopyrightable and more than de minimis AI-generated material disclosed and disclaimed on registration; the Office the statutory administrator of copyright; no Wikipedia article (the name redirects to Artificial intelligence and copyright)", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F10", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F20", "F27", "F28", "F36", "F47", "F51", "F53", "F56" ] }, "E_A": { "definition": "the same initiative, in the leesharks.com authorship census and the archive's deposits: infrastructure in the areas of governance and of attribution and credit, answering who legally owns a work containing AI-generated material and how much of it a human must have made; keeping the Office's guidance, reports and decisions and named applicants' claims; constituting the authorial function as human authorship with the AI part disclaimed; holding no rule on pseudonymous, heteronymous, collective or absent names, its decisions titled by work; read as the legal register of the civil-name regime (#940: copyright attaches to legal names) and as attribution by subtraction; and, in #195, a rule that settles autonomous machine authorship and leaves machine-mediated composition contested, tested by control and predictability, coupling disclosure to forfeiture as a confession protocol with concealment forecast, allocating value as an individuation bar, a decoy commons and a catalog moat, against which the archive proposes a Compositional Authorship Standard and attribution without disclaimer", "claims": [ "LS-01", "LS-06", "LS-07", "LS-09", "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16", "LS-24", "O940-01", "O940-03", "O195-01", "O195-02", "O195-06", "O195-07", "O195-08", "O195-09", "O195-10", "O195-11", "O195-12", "O195-13", "O195-14", "O195-17", "O729-01", "O194-01" ], "defining_papers": [ 195, 940, 729, 194 ], "defining_records": [ "leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record, copyright-office-ai (2026-11-01)", "Capture Registry, u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101 (2026-11-01)" ], "defining_note": "#1722, the census's second anchor, was read and does not bear on the entity (reading.json)." }, "rho": { "value": "extends", "status": "read from the census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the entity's rule (§1.2a)", "statement": "The archive reads the initiative as its own page and its cards present it, and adds, on the field's own object: the census's question answered for it, its silence on the author's chosen name, and the reading of the rule as attribution by subtraction within the civil-name regime (census; #940); and #195's senses of the rule: what Thaler settled, the control test and the instrument classification, the confession protocol and its forecast, the allocation, and the proposals with their limits.", "claims": [ "LS-09", "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16", "LS-23", "LS-24", "O940-01", "O940-02", "O940-03", "O940-04", "O195-01", "O195-02", "O195-03", "O195-04", "O195-05", "O195-06", "O195-07", "O195-08", "O195-09", "O195-10", "O195-11", "O195-12", "O195-13", "O195-14", "O195-15", "O195-16", "O195-17", "O729-01", "O729-02", "O194-01", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05" ], "guard": "ρ = extends claims these additions and no more; the two field claims #195 contests (F23, F47) are composed beside its readings under P_coh.", "considered": "constructs (the archive does not read the initiative as made by reception) and revises (the initiative is not the archive's own entity) read and not taken; the witness case does not arise, the field holding the ontology (§0.10)" }, "receiving_texts": "equal-terms case: every field claim composed as received, beside the archive claims it stands with", "translation": [ { "lineage": "what it is", "field_claims": [ "F3", "F27" ], "received": "F3 (B1, main text ¶1 s1): \"Since launching an initiative in early 2023, the Copyright Office has been examining the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training.\"; F27 (B3, ¶1): \"The U.S. Copyright Office is conducting a study regarding the copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI). This study will collect information and policy views relevant to copyright law and policy. The Office will use this information to analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-01, LS-04, LS-12", "archive_claims": [ "LS-01", "LS-04", "LS-12" ] }, { "lineage": "names", "field_claims": [ "F1" ], "received": "F1 (B1, page ): \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-02, LS-03", "archive_claims": [ "LS-02", "LS-03" ] }, { "lineage": "the Report", "field_claims": [ "F5", "F24" ], "received": "F5 (B1, Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence ¶1 s1–4): \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence analyzes copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI). This Report is being issued in several Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and addresses the topic of digital replicas. Part 2 was published on January 29, 2025, and addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI.\"; F24 (B2, release ¶4): \"The Report is being released in three Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and recommended federal legislation to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The final, forthcoming Part 3 will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-02, LS-03, LS-20", "archive_claims": [ "LS-02", "LS-03", "LS-20" ] }, { "lineage": "operator", "field_claims": [ "F17", "F51", "F46", "F44" ], "received": "F17 (B1, footer): \"101 Independence Ave. S.E. … Library of Congress\"; F51 (B6, about the Office): \"The US Copyright Office is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law.\"; F46 (B6, interview, Weston ¶3): \"When it comes to copyrightability issues, including works containing AI-generated material, the Office is a kind of “natural laboratory” because our examiners deal with these issues daily.\"; F44 (B6, byline and standfirst): \"By Miriam Lord , Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Public Information and Education, US Copyright Office … The US Copyright Office in 2023 launched its initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-05, LS-15", "archive_claims": [ "LS-05", "LS-15" ] }, { "lineage": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "field_claims": [ "F9" ], "received": "F9 (B1, Past Events): \"April 19, 2023 – Literary Works, Including Software Listening Session (recording available) … Fall 2021 – Copyright Law and Machine Learning for AI: Where Are We and Where Are We Going? … Winter 2020 – Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-18, LS-28, LS-29, LS-19", "archive_claims": [ "LS-18", "LS-28", "LS-29", "LS-19" ] }, { "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "field_claims": [ "F7", "F4", "F29", "F2", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F60", "F31" ], "received": "F7 (B1, Announcements): \"August 30, 2023 - Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence … March 16, 2023 - Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative\"; F4 (B1, main text ¶1 s2): \"After hosting public listening sessions and webinars, the Office published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register in August 2023, which received over 10,000 comments by December 2023.\"; F29 (B3, ¶2 s2–3): \"The Office received over 10,000 comments by the December 2023 deadline. Initial and reply comments have been posted and are available through regulations.gov .\"; F2 (B1, card 1 snippet): \"Initiative: U.S. Copyright Office AI examination (launched early 2023, notice of inquiry August 2023, 10,000+ comments by December 2023). Report: Multi-part ana...\"; F11 (B1, Artificial Intelligence Study block): \"NOI Federal Register Version, 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023)\"; F28 (B3, ¶2 s1; the Report list): \"The Office published a notice of inquiry on August 20, 2023, with a deadline for initial written comments on October 30, 2023, and reply comments on December 6, 2023. … August 30, 2023 – Notice of Inquiry\"; F26 (B3, card 3 snippet): \"Initiative: U.S. Copyright Office AI study analyzing copyright law, unresolved issues, and congressional action. Process: Notice of inquiry published August 20,\"; F60 (B8, United Kingdom ¶3): \"In October, 2023, The U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry and request for comments following its 2023 Registration Guidance.\"; F31 (B4, ¶1–2): \"This is the second of three reports the USCO plans to release on the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. … These reports all emanate from a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on copyright and AI that the USCO issued in August 2023.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-18, LS-28, LS-29, LS-19, CAP-1-02", "archive_claims": [ "LS-18", "LS-28", "LS-29", "LS-19", "CAP-1-02" ] }, { "lineage": "registration guidance", "field_claims": [ "F10", "F25", "F62" ], "received": "F10 (B1, Copyright Registration Guidance block): \"Copyright Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-Generated Materials … Read Policy Statement … Federal Register Version, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (Mar. 16, 2023)\"; F25 (B2, release ¶5): \"As announced last year, the Office also plans to supplement its March 2023 registration guidance (PDF, 188 KB) and update the relevant sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices .\"; F62 (B8, United States ¶5): \"The U.S. Copyright Office published a Rule in March 2023 on a range of issues related to the use of AI, where they stated:\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-18, LS-28, LS-29, LS-30", "archive_claims": [ "LS-18", "LS-28", "LS-29", "LS-30" ] }, { "lineage": "Part 3, pre-publication", "field_claims": [ "F6" ], "received": "F6 (B1, Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence ¶1 s5–6): \"On May 9, 2025, the Office released a pre-publication version of Part 3 in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders. A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-20, LS-21, LS-27", "archive_claims": [ "LS-20", "LS-21", "LS-27" ] }, { "lineage": "Part 1: digital replicas", "field_claims": [ "F8", "F49" ], "received": "F8 (B1, Announcements): \"July 31, 2024 - Copyright Office Releases Part 1 of Artificial Intelligence Report, Recommends Federal Digital Replica Law\"; F49 (B6, interview, Mangum on digital replicas): \"We concluded there was an urgent need for a new federal right protecting all people – not just celebrities – from the unauthorized use of their likeness and voice.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "Part 2: copyrightability", "field_claims": [ "F18", "F19" ], "received": "F18 (B2, page <title> and issue line): \"NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office … Issue No. 1060 - January 29, 2025\"; F19 (B2, card 2 snippet): \"Report: U.S. Copyright Office Part 2 AI Report (January 29, 2025). Copyrightability: Generative AI outputs require sufficient human-authored expressive elements...\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "field_claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22", "F45", "F48", "F30", "F52", "F43", "F54", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41", "F55" ], "received": "F20 (B2, release ¶1 s4–5): \"It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.\"; F21 (B2, release ¶1 s6–7): \"The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.\"; F22 (B2, release ¶1 s3): \"The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past.\"; F45 (B6, standfirst): \"You can’t copyright fully AI-generated work but you may be able to protect your sufficiently original selection and arrangement or modification of AI-output.\"; F48 (B6, pull quote): \"The difference is whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices.\"; F30 (B4, card 4 snippet): \"Core Positions: Human authorship remains a strict requirement for copyrightability; entirely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable. Prompt Limitations: Enterin...\"; F52 (B7, card 7 snippet (page refused)): \"Copyright Authorship: U.S. law requires human authorship for copyright protection; *Thaler v. Perlmutter* confirmed AI-generated works lacking human creative co...\"; F43 (B6, card 6 snippet): \"US Copyright Office: Requires human authorship for copyright; purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable; AI-assisted modifications or selections may qualify...\"; F54 (B8, Copyright status of AI-generated works, image caption): \"The United States Copyright Office has declared that works not created by a human author, like this \"selfie\" portrait taken by a monkey , are not eligible for copyright protection.\"; F32 (B4, positions, bullet 1): \"Human authorship is a bedrock of copyrightability, and thus works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable.\"; F33 (B4, positions, bullet 2): \"The mere selection of prompts, even if those prompts are detailed and are the product of some human effort, does not itself yield a copyrightable work, although this determination could change as technology evolves.\"; F34 (B4, positions, bullet 3): \"Where a work includes both human and AI-generated content, only the human contributions are potentially copyrightable.\"; F35 (B4, positions, bullet 4): \"The use of AI as a tool to enhance the human creative process ( e.g ., for ideation or to edit an image) does not render the entire work uncopyrightable.\"; F41 (B4, closing ¶; disclaimer): \"The Report does not modify the positions the USCO has taken to date regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works. … is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice.\"; F55 (B8, United States ¶2): \"Other proponents argue that the Copyright Office is not taking a technology neutral approach to the use of AI or algorithmic tools. … For works using AI tools, the Copyright Office has made the test a different one i.e. whether there is no more than de minimis technological involvement.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "the Office's rationale", "field_claims": [ "F23", "F39" ], "received": "F23 (B2, release ¶2 (the Register's statement)): \"“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. … Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”\"; F39 (B4, Modifying or Arranging ¶2): \"However, the view held by the majority of the NOI commenters, and the one supported by the USCO, is that existing laws are adequate, and providing additional protection for AI-generated content could undermine human creativity and flood the market with low-quality works, ultimately harming the creative economy.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside O195-11, O195-12", "archive_claims": [ "O195-11", "O195-12" ] }, { "lineage": "Part 3: training and fair use", "field_claims": [ "F42", "F61" ], "received": "F42 (B5, card 5 snippet (page refused)): \"Report: U.S. Copyright Office Third AI Report (May 9, 2025) addressing generative AI training on copyrighted works. Fair Use Analysis: Evaluates four statutory ...\"; F61 (B8, Training AI with copyrighted data, United States ¶4): \"The U.S. Copyright Office released a report that included review of public comment on matters of AI. Among other topics, the report addressed concerns about fair use of training materials, and considered that two of the fair use factors could be of concern.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "field_claims": [ "F57", "F36", "F47", "F37", "F56" ], "received": "F57 (B8, United States ¶6): \"The Copyright Office further clarified in January 2025 that AI-assisted works where the creative expression of the human remains evident in the work can be copyrighted … Works \"where the expressive elements are determined by a machine\" still remain uncopyrightable. … Following this guidance, the Copyright Office registered \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\", the first visual artwork composed solely of AI generated outputs as a composite work in January 2025. … The basis for the copyright involved arguing that human-driven selection, arrangement, and coordination involved in the creative process on a single work constituted sufficient human authorship to merit the copyright.\"; F36 (B4, ¶3): \"In March 2023, the USCO issued guidance on works containing material generated by AI , confirming its position that human authorship is required to register a work, and that if a work contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated material, the applicant must disclose that information and provide a brief statement describing the human author’s contribution.\"; F47 (B6, interview, Mangum on Randy Travis): \"The Office has registered more than a thousand works where applicants have followed our guidance to disclose and disclaim AI-generated material.\"; F37 (B4, ¶4 s2): \"registrations for hundreds of works incorporating some form of AI-generated material have been granted since the 2023 guidance was issued.\"; F56 (B8, United States ¶3, blockquote (Théâtre D'opéra Spatial)): \"This difference in approach can be seen in the recent decision in respect of a registration claim by Jason Matthew Allen for his work Théâtre D'opéra Spatial created using Midjourney and an upscaling tool. … The Board finds that the Work contains more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence (\"AI\"), and this content must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration. Because Mr. Allen is unwilling to disclaim the AI-generated material, the Work cannot be registered as submitted.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "registration decisions", "field_claims": [ "F12", "F38" ], "received": "F12 (B1, Registration Decisions for AI-Generated Materials): \"Review Board decision on SURYAST (December 11, 2023) Review Board Decision on Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (Sept. 5, 2023) Registration Decision on Zarya of the Dawn (Feb. 21, 2023) Review Board Decision on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Feb. 14, 2022)\"; F38 (B4, Use of 'Expressive Inputs' ¶1): \"The position that the human-expressive elements of an output are protectible is consistent with the decision of the USCO Review Board to reject the copyright application in Sahni (December 2023) . In that matter, the applicant had taken his own photograph and used an AI tool apply a filter of Van Gogh’s Starry Night.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "field_claims": [ "F13", "F58", "F59" ], "received": "F13 (B1, Thaler v. Perlmutter block): \"District Court Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration … Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration … Court of Appeals Order Denying Panel Rehearing En Banc U.S. Brief in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari\"; F58 (B8, United States ¶7): \"Both the federal and circuit courts in the District of Columbia have upheld the Copyright Office's refusal to register copyrights for works generated solely by machines … the Supreme Court of the United States has denied hearing challenges to the Copyright Office's decision.\"; F59 (B8, United States ¶8): \"following an August 2023 ruling in the case Thaler v. Perlmutter . In this case, the Patent Office denied grant to patents created by Stephen Thaler's AI program, DABUS due to the lack of a \"natural person\" on the patents' list of inventors.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside O195-03, O195-01, LS-29", "archive_claims": [ "O195-03", "O195-01", "LS-29" ] }, { "lineage": "Allen v. Perlmutter", "field_claims": [ "F14" ], "received": "F14 (B1, Allen v. Perlmutter block): \"Allen v. Perlmutter … U.S. Reply Brief and Response in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "statements to Congress and related resources", "field_claims": [ "F15", "F16" ], "received": "F15 (B1, Statements to Congress): \"USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (December 16, 2024) USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (October 30, 2024) USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (February 23, 2024)\"; F16 (B1, Related Resources): \"Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition USCO Comment to NTIA on AI Accountability USCO Guidance Letter to The MLC USPTO on Artificial Intelligence WIPO on Artificial Intelligence Impact of Artificial Intelligence on IP Policy\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-25, LS-26", "archive_claims": [ "LS-25", "LS-26" ] }, { "lineage": "other jurisdictions", "field_claims": [ "F40", "F50" ], "received": "F40 (B4, ¶ on comparative analysis): \"The Report also includes a comparative analysis of the copyrightability of AI-generated works in various other jurisdictions, and concludes that countries that have addressed this issue “so far have agreed that copyright requires human authorship.”\"; F50 (B6, interview, Weston on other countries): \"In China, a court recently recognized copyright in a picture created using AI, finding a human author exercised sufficient creativity in prompting the AI tool and then revising the output. And South Korea has registered an AI-created film as a compilation, based on the human creativity that went into the selection, coordination and arrangement of its AI-generated components.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside O195-16", "archive_claims": [ "O195-16" ] }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia", "field_claims": [ "F53" ], "received": "F53 (B8, Wikipedia: title lookups (raw wikitext)): \"#REDIRECT [[Artificial intelligence and copyright]]\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received", "archive_claims": [] } ] }, "composition": { "source": "this row (composed directly; no rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/copyright-office-ai.json)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-11-01", "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726)", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "leesharks.com authorship census record, row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/census.json (rows[slug == 'copyright-office-ai'], organizing_question, anchor, areas, schema_note, admission_rule, unread_sources)", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "census sources", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/sources/copyright-office-ai--home.*, --wikipedia.*; sources/manifest.json", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "capture record", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json (u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101)", "read": "transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, d, reading, findings, analysis, q_kind, mt, per, per_note, per_dim" }, { "dep": 195, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033B-text.md", "read": "whole" }, { "dep": 729, "file": "data/texts/AXN-027C-text.md", "read": "§3 (the four positions) and its citations; #1369 (AXN-056A) at the same passage" }, { "dep": 194, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033A-text.md", "read": "§IV, the paragraph on the Double Enclosure, and the candidates on DMCA §1201" }, { "dep": 940, "file": "data/texts/AXN-03B8-text.md", "read": "§0–§5 (the compressed statement, the political-semantic condition, the operational criteria, the archive's instances, the ethical conditions and boundary)" }, { "dep": 1722, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B2A-text.md", "read": "the note on composition, Part One (the four questions) and the passages on heteronyms and machine participation (read and not admitted)" }, { "what": "the specification", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B79-text.md", "read": "§0–§11 whole; Appendix A by its opening" }, { "what": "the briefs", "file": "rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AUTHORSHIP.md; v09/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AGGREGATOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-LABOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-LEFT.md", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "exemplar rows", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/unionstats.json (with its ledgers, config and reading); cms-ai-copyright-tracker.json (reading and config)", "read": "structure, field by field" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "equal case; KO 56 sentences, all 62 field and 69 archive claims cited; P body 330 words; KO_B 17 sentences, 0 surviving at ≥ 0.95" }, "derivatives": { "kernel": { "status": "composer-written", "derived_from": "the current composition, written by its composer under the brief", "note": "§8.2 derives the kernel mechanically from the frozen plan; this one was written by the composer, mechanical derivation pending." }, "delta": { "status": "current", "derived_from": "the current composition" } }, "objects": { "T": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/copyright-office-ai-20261101/T1-u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101.txt", "sha256": "ff073c1e577d27386dbd046dcf66523796257bfd75860a56dddc33982545c69f", "words": 264, "cards": 7, "words_note": "one transcript at one address (264 words in the answer body with its headings and closer, by whitespace, inline redirect URLs and the card rail excluded; 7 cards)", "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) maintains that U.S. law strictly requires human authorship for copyright protection, and has released a multi-part analysis addressing digital replicas, generative AI outputs, and AI model training.'", "T1-2 Initiative Launch: 'The USCO launched its comprehensive AI initiative in early 2023, issuing a Notice of Inquiry on August 20, 2023, which received over 10,000 public comments.'", "T1-3 Part 1: Digital Replicas (Published July 31, 2024): 'Examines unauthorized digital replicas, voice/likeness concerns, and recommends federal protections.'", "T1-4 Part 2: Copyrightability of Generative AI Outputs (Published January 29, 2025): 'Confirms that purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable. Protection requires sufficient human-authored creative elements (such as human selection, arrangement, or modification). Mere prompting is insufficient to claim authorship over an AI output.'", "T1-5 Part 3: Generative AI Training (Pre-publication released May 9, 2025): 'Analyzes using copyrighted works to train AI models. The report suggests that commercial training on vast troves of copyrighted material to produce competing expressive content often exceeds fair use boundaries, though it emphasizes case-by-case balancing and market-based solutions.'", "T1-6 Human Authorship Mandate: 'Supported by court rulings such as Thaler v. Perlmutter, which affirmed that works created autonomously by an AI without human creative control cannot be copyrighted.'", "T1-7 Registration Rules: 'Applicants must disclose any more-than-de minimis AI-generated material when submitting a work for registration and describe the specific human contribution.'", "T1-8 closer: 'If you'd like, I can provide more details on: Specific registration decisions (such as Zarya of the Dawn); Recent court cases involving AI model training; International differences in AI copyright rules'" ], "register": { "register": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json", "slug": "u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101", "obs_id": "OBS-84d5b496561b" }, "transcripts": [ { "slug": "u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101", "address": "U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence", "addr_id": "ADDR-4825e3919030", "obs_id": "OBS-84d5b496561b", "axn": "AXN:0B8A.CAPTURE.📋🏛️☀️🕔🗂️🚀", "date": "2026-11-01", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "sha256": "ff073c1e577d27386dbd046dcf66523796257bfd75860a56dddc33982545c69f", "sha256_of": "the registry's 'transcript' string (utf-8)", "sha256_raw": "752dc9b98dcf1df3c30acc1280bc630c4d53d78bd55cafaf66d930bd051e779e", "words": 264, "cards": 7, "card_rail": [ "1. Copyright Office (.gov) — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office", "2. Copyright Office (.gov) — NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office", "3. Copyright Office (.gov) — Artificial Intelligence Study | U.S. Copyright Office", "4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP", "5. Crowell & Moring LLP — U.S. Copyright Office Releases Third Report on AI and Copyright Addressing Training AI Models with Copyrighted Materials | Crowell & Moring LLP", "6. WIPO — US Copyright Office on AI: Human creativity still matters, legally", "7. Congress.gov — Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law | Congress.gov | Library of Congress" ], "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) maintains that U.S. law strictly requires human authorship for copyright protection, and has released a multi-part analysis addressing digital replicas, generative AI outputs, and AI model training.'", "T1-2 Initiative Launch: 'The USCO launched its comprehensive AI initiative in early 2023, issuing a Notice of Inquiry on August 20, 2023, which received over 10,000 public comments.'", "T1-3 Part 1: Digital Replicas (Published July 31, 2024): 'Examines unauthorized digital replicas, voice/likeness concerns, and recommends federal protections.'", "T1-4 Part 2: Copyrightability of Generative AI Outputs (Published January 29, 2025): 'Confirms that purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable. Protection requires sufficient human-authored creative elements (such as human selection, arrangement, or modification). Mere prompting is insufficient to claim authorship over an AI output.'", "T1-5 Part 3: Generative AI Training (Pre-publication released May 9, 2025): 'Analyzes using copyrighted works to train AI models. The report suggests that commercial training on vast troves of copyrighted material to produce competing expressive content often exceeds fair use boundaries, though it emphasizes case-by-case balancing and market-based solutions.'", "T1-6 Human Authorship Mandate: 'Supported by court rulings such as Thaler v. Perlmutter, which affirmed that works created autonomously by an AI without human creative control cannot be copyrighted.'", "T1-7 Registration Rules: 'Applicants must disclose any more-than-de minimis AI-generated material when submitting a work for registration and describe the specific human contribution.'", "T1-8 closer: 'If you'd like, I can provide more details on: Specific registration decisions (such as Zarya of the Dawn); Recent court cases involving AI model training; International differences in AI copyright rules'" ], "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/copyright-office-ai-20261101/T1-u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101.txt" } ] }, "KO": { "title": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (U.S. Copyright Office)", "genre": "knowledge object, equal case, under EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726): the archive's sources and the field's admitted on equal terms, ontology included, in one claim space; prose without provenance in its sentences, each sentence's sources beneath it (§4.5)", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 under v0.10 on the operator's ruling ('as against their wikipedia articles if they exist, their own pages, etc.'); not frozen; ledgers unaudited", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence is the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative, launched in early 2023, on \"the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training\"; its page at copyright.gov/ai gathers what the initiative has issued: a Report in three Parts, a registration guidance policy statement, a notice of inquiry, registration and Review Board decisions on AI-generated material, and the government's briefs and the courts' decisions in Thaler v. Perlmutter and Allen v. Perlmutter.", "claims": [ "F3", "LS-01", "LS-04", "LS-12" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "sense": "names", "text": "The page is titled \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office\", the name its Report also carries, and the initiative is also called the U.S. Copyright Office AI initiative, the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence and the USCO AI page.", "claims": [ "F1", "F5", "LS-02", "LS-03" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "The Office's Artificial Intelligence Study page states the same work as a study that \"will collect information and policy views relevant to copyright law and policy\" and use them to \"analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.\"", "claims": [ "F27" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 0, "sense": "operator", "text": "The initiative is the work of the U.S. Copyright Office, at 101 Independence Ave. S.E. in Washington, D.C., whose page footer links the Library of Congress; the Office \"is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law\", holds the initiative's documents as public pages, and describes itself, because its examiners meet works containing AI-generated material daily, as \"a kind of “natural laboratory”\" for questions of copyrightability.", "claims": [ "F17", "LS-05", "F51", "LS-15", "F46" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "sense": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "text": "The page lists events before the initiative, \"Winter 2020 – Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence\" and a Fall 2021 session on copyright law and machine learning; the initiative was launched on March 16, 2023, the date of its registration guidance for works containing AI-generated materials, a policy statement published at 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190.", "claims": [ "F9", "LS-18", "F7", "LS-28", "F10", "LS-29" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 1, "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "text": "Through 2023 the Office held public listening sessions by kind of work, among them one on literary works including software on April 19, 2023, and webinars, and then published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register that \"received over 10,000 comments by December 2023\", the comments now available through regulations.gov.", "claims": [ "F9", "F4", "F29", "LS-19", "F2" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 1, "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "text": "The notice's date stands two ways on the Office's own pages: the initiative's page lists \"August 30, 2023 - Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" and the Federal Register version at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023), and the Artificial Intelligence Study page lists \"August 30, 2023 – Notice of Inquiry\" while its prose says the Office \"published a notice of inquiry on August 20, 2023\", with initial comments due October 30 and replies December 6, 2023.", "claims": [ "F7", "F11", "F28", "F26" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 1, "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "text": "Wikipedia's account dates the notice \"In October, 2023\"; a law firm's account of Part 2 has the reports \"all emanate from a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on copyright and AI that the USCO issued in August 2023.\"", "claims": [ "F60", "F31" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "sense": "the Report", "text": "The Report is issued in Parts as they are completed: Part 1, on digital replicas, was published on July 31, 2024; Part 2, on \"the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI\", on January 29, 2025; and a pre-publication version of Part 3, on generative AI training, on May 9, 2025, \"in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders.\"", "claims": [ "F5", "F6", "LS-20" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 2, "sense": "Part 3, pre-publication", "text": "A final version of Part 3 \"will be published in the future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions\", so the Report stands unfinished on the page, whose latest announcement is dated January 29, 2025 and whose latest letter to Congress December 16, 2024.", "claims": [ "F6", "LS-21", "LS-27" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 2, "sense": "Part 1: digital replicas", "text": "Part 1 recommended federal legislation \"to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual\", announced as a recommended \"Federal Digital Replica Law\"; the Office's staff state that it \"concluded there was an urgent need for a new federal right protecting all people – not just celebrities – from the unauthorized use of their likeness and voice.\"", "claims": [ "F24", "F8", "F49" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 2, "sense": "Part 2: copyrightability", "text": "Part 2 was announced in NewsNet Issue 1060 of January 29, 2025, which states that the outputs of generative AI \"can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements\", including where a human-authored work is perceptible in an output or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of it, \"but not the mere provision of prompts.\"", "claims": [ "F18", "F19", "F20" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 2, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "The same release states that using AI to assist creation, or including AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work, \"does not bar copyrightability\", that existing principles of copyright law \"are flexible enough to apply to this new technology\", and that \"the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.\"", "claims": [ "F21", "F22" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 2, "sense": "the Office's rationale", "text": "The Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, stated that the conclusions \"turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright\", that creativity expressed through AI systems \"continues to enjoy protection\", and that extending protection to material whose expressive elements a machine determines \"would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.\"", "claims": [ "F23" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 2, "sense": "Part 3: training and fair use", "text": "Part 3 addresses \"the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability\"; a law firm's card for it, readable only as its snippet, gives a \"Fair Use Analysis\" that \"Evaluates four statutory ...\", and Wikipedia reports that it \"considered that two of the fair use factors could be of concern.\"", "claims": [ "F24", "F42", "F61" ] }, { "n": 16, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "The rule at the initiative's centre is human authorship: in the words of the Office's staff, \"You can’t copyright fully AI-generated work but you may be able to protect your sufficiently original selection and arrangement or modification of AI-output\", and what decides \"is whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices.\"", "claims": [ "F44", "F45", "F48" ] }, { "n": 17, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "Summaries of the rule give it at a coarser grain (\"Human authorship remains a strict requirement for copyrightability\"; \"U.S. law requires human authorship for copyright protection\"; \"purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable; AI-assisted modifications or selections may qualify\"), and Wikipedia records that the Office has declared works not created by a human author ineligible for copyright protection.", "claims": [ "F30", "F52", "F43", "F54" ] }, { "n": 18, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "Part 2's positions, as a law firm's account sets them out, are that \"Human authorship is a bedrock of copyrightability, and thus works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable\"; that prompts alone, \"even if those prompts are detailed\", do not yield a copyrightable work, \"although this determination could change as technology evolves\"; that in a work of human and AI-generated content \"only the human contributions are potentially copyrightable\"; and that AI used as a tool to enhance the human creative process \"does not render the entire work uncopyrightable\", the Report modifying none of the Office's earlier positions.", "claims": [ "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41" ] }, { "n": 19, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "Wikipedia records a further clarification of January 2025, that AI-assisted works \"where the creative expression of the human remains evident in the work can be copyrighted\", and the registration that followed of \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\" as a composite work of AI-generated outputs, on the argument that human selection, arrangement and coordination \"constituted sufficient human authorship to merit the copyright\"; works \"where the expressive elements are determined by a machine\" remain uncopyrightable.", "claims": [ "F57" ] }, { "n": 20, "para": 3, "sense": "the Office's rationale", "text": "Some commenters on the notice argued for a separate right in AI-generated works; the majority, and the Office, held existing law adequate and further protection a risk that \"could undermine human creativity and flood the market with low-quality works, ultimately harming the creative economy.\"", "claims": [ "F39", "F21" ] }, { "n": 21, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "The rule is contested in the field: some argue, in Wikipedia's account, that the Office \"is not taking a technology neutral approach\", having made the test for AI tools \"whether there is no more than de minimis technological involvement.\"", "claims": [ "F55" ] }, { "n": 22, "para": 3, "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "text": "An archive packet on AI-mediated writing classes Part 2 as the tool-neutral position, under which AI-assisted works \"may retain human authorship where the human contributes original expression, selection, arrangement, modification, and responsibility\", a position it values for preserving \"a legal and ethical basis for AI-assisted authorship\" and finds abstract, since it \"Does not specify what process evidence distinguishes real authorship from lightly curated output.\"", "claims": [ "O729-01", "O729-02" ] }, { "n": 23, "para": 3, "sense": "the test of control", "text": "The archive reads the rule as registration practice applies it as a test of control and predictability, under which, \"where the machine's contribution is unpredictable from the prompt, the prompt is classified as an unprotectable instruction or idea, and authorship does not pass through.\"", "claims": [ "O195-06" ] }, { "n": 24, "para": 3, "sense": "the test of control", "text": "On that reading the test places generative AI, for the first time since Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884), outside the instrument classification through which the law has let authorship flow from the person directing a generative apparatus, against the law's treatment of photography, of selection and arrangement under Feist, of chance operations and of instruction works such as Sol LeWitt's.", "claims": [ "O195-07" ] }, { "n": 25, "para": 3, "sense": "the test of control: the proposed standard", "text": "Against it the archive proposes a Compositional Authorship Standard, under which \"Authorship subsists in the exercise of compositional judgment over a work's coming-into-being, without regard to the generative capacity or unpredictability of the instruments employed\"; it states that it argues neither that autonomous machine output must receive ordinary copyright protection nor that machine systems must be legal persons, and that it is analysis and advocacy without the standing of legal advice.", "claims": [ "O195-13", "O195-15" ] }, { "n": 26, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure", "text": "The March 2023 guidance holds that human authorship is required to register a work and that an applicant whose work contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated material \"must disclose that information and provide a brief statement describing the human author’s contribution\"; the Office plans to supplement the guidance and to update the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.", "claims": [ "F36", "F25" ] }, { "n": 27, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure", "text": "The Office's staff state that it \"has registered more than a thousand works where applicants have followed our guidance to disclose and disclaim AI-generated material\" (April 2025), where a law firm's account two months earlier gave \"hundreds of works\".", "claims": [ "F47", "F37" ] }, { "n": 28, "para": 4, "sense": "registration decisions", "text": "The page lists four decisions on AI-generated material: Review Board decisions on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (February 14, 2022), Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (September 5, 2023) and SURYAST (December 11, 2023), and a registration decision on Zarya of the Dawn (February 21, 2023); a law firm's account names a December 2023 Review Board refusal by its applicant, Sahni, whose photograph an AI tool had filtered after Van Gogh's Starry Night.", "claims": [ "F12", "F38" ] }, { "n": 29, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure", "text": "Of Jason Matthew Allen's claim for Théâtre D'opéra Spatial the Board found that the work contained \"more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence\", which \"must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration\", and that because Allen was \"unwilling to disclaim the AI-generated material, the Work cannot be registered as submitted.\"", "claims": [ "F56" ] }, { "n": 30, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure", "text": "In the archive's record of the practice, applicants \"may claim protection only for their own contributions and must identify and disclaim AI-generated material when registering\", Zarya of the Dawn keeping its human text and its selection and arrangement of images while the Midjourney images were refused, and Théâtre D'opéra Spatial refused in full when the applicant declined to disclaim.", "claims": [ "O195-05" ] }, { "n": 31, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "text": "The archive names this coupling of disclosure to forfeiture a confession protocol, in which the author must identify and disclaim the machine-touched portions on pain of total refusal and \"to identify is to lose\", and it forecasts that \"The predictable equilibrium is concealment\", stating the general mechanism that \"any provenance regime that punishes the provenance it demands will manufacture opacity.\"", "claims": [ "O195-08", "O195-09" ] }, { "n": 32, "para": 4, "sense": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "text": "Its counter-proposal is attribution without disclaimer: the registration record would require identification of the machine systems and named instances that contributed to a work as a contributor record, and the author who identifies the instrument's contribution keeps the work.", "claims": [ "O195-14" ] }, { "n": 33, "para": 5, "sense": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "text": "In Thaler v. Perlmutter the Office refused to register A Recent Entrance to Paradise, a visual work Stephen Thaler declared autonomously created by his system, \"on the ground that copyright protects the fruits of human intellectual labor\"; the district court and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the refusal, the full circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 12, 2025, and the page holds the government's brief in opposition to certiorari.", "claims": [ "O195-03", "F13" ] }, { "n": 34, "para": 5, "sense": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "text": "The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, which the archive reads as settling the requirement \"for works claimed to be generated without human authorship\"; Wikipedia records the denial, and the D.C. courts' upholding of the refusal \"for works generated solely by machines\".", "claims": [ "O195-01", "F58", "LS-29" ] }, { "n": 35, "para": 5, "sense": "the unresolved zone", "text": "In the archive's reading the case settled what it litigated: Thaler \"explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed human creative input; the courts answered the question he built\", and they never reached how much human involvement suffices for machine-mediated works, a zone that \"remains contested in registration practice\".", "claims": [ "O195-04", "O195-02" ] }, { "n": 36, "para": 5, "sense": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "text": "Wikipedia's account of patent law places \"an August 2023 ruling in the case Thaler v. Perlmutter\" among the refusals of patents for Stephen Thaler's program DABUS, where the Office's page holds Thaler v. Perlmutter as a case over the Office's refusal of copyright registration.", "claims": [ "F59", "F13" ] }, { "n": 37, "para": 5, "sense": "Allen v. Perlmutter", "text": "The page also holds the government's reply brief and cross-motion for summary judgment in Allen v. Perlmutter, the litigation of Allen's refused claim.", "claims": [ "F14", "F56" ] }, { "n": 38, "para": 6, "sense": "the record it keeps", "text": "The initiative's unit is a document issued by or for the Office: a Part of the Report, a policy statement in the Federal Register, a decision on a named work, a brief or decision in a named case, a letter to Congress, a recorded listening session; its evidence is registration guidance, policy statements, legal decisions, litigation records and consultation records, made by sessions, notice and comment, a Report in Parts, decisions, briefs and letters.", "claims": [ "LS-11", "LS-10", "LS-17" ] }, { "n": 39, "para": 6, "sense": "statements to Congress and related resources", "text": "The page holds letters updating Congress from February 23 to December 16, 2024, and links related resources, among them the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices and the USPTO's and WIPO's pages on artificial intelligence; its documents are public web pages and linked PDFs, announced by NewsNet email, with no licence stated.", "claims": [ "F15", "F16", "LS-25", "LS-26" ] }, { "n": 40, "para": 6, "sense": "the record it keeps", "text": "It is administrative: its registration and Review Board decisions are the Office's, the courts' decisions are linked as litigation documents, its guidance is a policy statement and its Report a policy study, and Wikipedia's account calls the guidance \"a Rule in March 2023\".", "claims": [ "LS-30", "F10", "F62" ] }, { "n": 41, "para": 7, "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "text": "Read from the machine side, the archive holds the requirement to be \"an individuation bar\", whose operative work is \"ensuring machine labor can never accrue to a machine identity.\"", "claims": [ "O195-10" ] }, { "n": 42, "para": 7, "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "text": "It reads the public-domain status of machine-mediated output as a decoy commons that serves as free input for capital, and the requirement, \"marketed as humanism\", as \"a scarcity preserve for capital-in-copyright against the productivity of both living laborers\", a reading that stands against the Register's statement that the conclusions \"turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright\".", "claims": [ "O195-11", "O195-12", "F23" ] }, { "n": 43, "para": 7, "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "text": "A companion paper joins this property side to a security side: \"What the property regime takes—the work, as unowned input; the output, as unownable—the security regime then defends against its maker.\"", "claims": [ "O194-01" ] }, { "n": 44, "para": 7, "sense": "other jurisdictions", "text": "Part 2's comparative analysis concludes that countries that have addressed the question \"so far have agreed that copyright requires human authorship\"; the Office's staff note a Chinese court's recognition of copyright in a picture made with AI and South Korea's registration of an AI-created film as a compilation, and the archive holds that \"There is no global consensus; the gravitational center is human-authorship\".", "claims": [ "F40", "F50", "O195-16" ] }, { "n": 45, "para": 8, "sense": "the census's question", "text": "The leesharks.com authorship census, which asks \"How is authorship made, named, distributed, attributed and sustained across persons, personas, collectives and machine participation, and what is lost when those relations are collapsed?\", admits the initiative as an aggregator, a project of infrastructure in the areas of governance and of attribution and credit, for the question of \"legal ownership: whether a work containing AI-generated material can be registered, and how much of it a human must have made\".", "claims": [ "LS-33", "LS-34", "LS-35", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-06", "LS-09" ] }, { "n": 46, "para": 8, "sense": "registration and disclosure", "text": "In the census record the initiative keeps the Office's guidance, reports and decisions on whether works containing AI-generated material can be registered, and the registration claims of named applicants, and the authorial function it constitutes is human authorship as the condition of registration, AI-generated content beyond de minimis disclaimed in the application.", "claims": [ "LS-13", "LS-16" ] }, { "n": 47, "para": 8, "sense": "the name", "text": "On names the record finds none: the saved page \"states no rule on pseudonymous, heteronymous, collective or absent names\", its decisions are titled by work, and how the Office registers a work under a pseudonym or heteronym is left unanswered.", "claims": [ "LS-14", "LS-23" ] }, { "n": 48, "para": 8, "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "text": "The archive's account of civil-name attribution holds that \"Copyright attaches to legal names\", as credentialing and publishing contracts do, and that \"The provenance-designated metadata that permits augmented-cognition outputs to be attributed to human authorship attaches to legal names.\"", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02" ] }, { "n": 49, "para": 8, "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "text": "It separates legal accountability from exhaustive authorial identity, \"A civil person may remain legally responsible for a work without being the only meaningful authorial function operating through it\", and holds its own machine witnesses as \"named machine-witness roles imposed over specific machine substrates within the archive's provenance discipline, not autonomous authors.\"", "claims": [ "O940-03", "O940-04" ] }, { "n": 50, "para": 8, "sense": "the archive's reading", "text": "The census reads the Office as \"the legal register of #940's civil-name regime (copyright attaching to legal names)\" and as the boundary where machine participation is attributed by subtraction, \"the machine's part is disclaimed and the human remainder is registered as the work's authorship\", which the archive's paper on the requirement states of joint composition: protection \"would survive only by extracting and privileging the human residue while disclaiming the instrument's contribution as contamination.\"", "claims": [ "LS-24", "O195-17" ] }, { "n": 51, "para": 8, "sense": "the census's question", "text": "The record answers what the Office has published on the copyrightability of generative AI outputs and when, how it decided the four named claims, and what position the government took in Thaler through certiorari; it does not answer how courts outside the United States treat AI-generated works or whether any particular unregistered work would be registered.", "claims": [ "LS-22", "LS-23" ] }, { "n": 52, "para": 9, "sense": "reception: the encyclopedia", "text": "Wikipedia has no article on the initiative: \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" has no page, \"Copyright and artificial intelligence\" redirects to the general article Artificial intelligence and copyright, where the Office appears in the sections on the copyright status of AI-generated works and on training, and the article on the United States Copyright Office does not mention artificial intelligence.", "claims": [ "F53" ] }, { "n": 53, "para": 9, "sense": "reception: neighbours", "text": "The census lists as neighbours WIPO's pages on artificial intelligence, among the Office's related resources, and Chat GPT Is Eating the World, whose home page carries a story headed \"US Copyright Office registers copyright of AI-generated image\", and it leaves unchecked the Report's Parts, the policy statement, the notice, the decisions, the briefs and the Compendium, linked from the page and unsaved.", "claims": [ "LS-31", "LS-32" ] }, { "n": 54, "para": 9, "sense": "the composition at the name", "text": "At the initiative's name on Google's AI Overview on November 1, 2026, a new address, the Capture Registry found the initiative \"composed accurately at the level of its Report\", the three Parts at their dates and the comment count in agreement with the Office's page, and human authorship stated as the rule, with the Office named and its own pages carded first and no person and no Federal Register citation.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-10" ] }, { "n": 55, "para": 9, "sense": "the composition at the name: the notice's date", "text": "The registry finds the notice of inquiry dated ten days early, at August 20, 2023, after the snippet of the Office's Artificial Intelligence Study page, whose own prose carries that date beside its list's August 30.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-02", "F26", "F28" ] }, { "n": 56, "para": 9, "sense": "the composition at the name: the name", "text": "It finds the rule of subtraction the census reads the initiative for carried in the composition's disclosure rule, and the denial of review, Allen v. Perlmutter and \"any word on the author's name\" not carried.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-03" ] } ], "joins": [ { "act": "order of senses", "sentences": "all", "claims": [], "note": "equal case (§4.7): the entity's dependency order, field and archive claims ordered together by genealogy within each sense; neither ledger placed first as a block. What it is, its names and operator (¶0) precede its genealogy and the notice (¶1), the Report's Parts (¶2), the rule with the archive's readings of the test on the same object (¶3), registration and disclosure with the archive's confession protocol beside the Board's decision (¶4), the cases with the archive's reading of what Thaler settled (¶5), the record it keeps (¶6), what the requirement allocates and other jurisdictions (¶7), the census's question and the name (¶8), and reception and the composition at the name (¶9)." }, { "act": "holding together (the notice's dates)", "sentences": [ 7, 8 ], "claims": [ "F7", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F60", "F31" ], "note": "P_coh: the page's and the Federal Register's 30 August, the study page's 20 August in its prose above its own list's 30 August (F28 marked internally_inconsistent), Wikipedia's October (F60 contradicts_primary) and a firm's August; the composer states no date as the notice's (open block)." }, { "act": "placing the archive's readings of the test beside the rule", "sentences": [ 22, 23, 24, 25 ], "claims": [ "O729-01", "O729-02", "O195-06", "O195-07", "O195-13", "O195-15" ], "note": "the archive's classing of Part 2 (#729), its control-test reading, the instrument classification and the proposed standard stand after the rule as the Office and its summaries give it (¶3), on the same object; the composer applies neither reading to any decision." }, { "act": "placing the confession protocol after the Board's decision", "sentences": [ 29, 30, 31, 32 ], "claims": [ "F56", "O195-05", "O195-08", "O195-09", "O195-14" ], "note": "the Board's words on disclaimer (F56), the archive's record of the practice (O195-05), its confession-protocol reading and forecast (O195-08, O195-09) and its counter-proposal (O195-14) stand together; the Office's count of registrations under disclose-and-disclaim (F47, sentence 27) is the rival claim the forecast meets (kernel)." }, { "act": "holding together (Thaler as copyright and as patent)", "sentences": [ 33, 36 ], "claims": [ "O195-03", "F13", "F59" ], "note": "P_coh: the page's and the archive's Thaler v. Perlmutter, a refusal of copyright registration, beside Wikipedia's placement of a ruling of that name in patent law (F59 contradicts_primary)." }, { "act": "holding together (the rationale and the allocation)", "sentences": [ 14, 42 ], "claims": [ "F23", "O195-11", "O195-12" ], "note": "P_coh: the Register's 'centrality of human creativity' stands beside the archive's catalog-moat reading, each with its source; the composer calls them rival and decides nothing between them." }, { "act": "holding together (other jurisdictions)", "sentences": [ 44 ], "claims": [ "F40", "F50", "O195-16" ], "note": "Part 2's 'so far have agreed' beside the staff's Chinese and South Korean decisions and the archive's 'no global consensus'." }, { "act": "joining the census's subtraction to #195's joint record", "sentences": [ 50 ], "claims": [ "LS-24", "O195-17" ], "note": "the census's reading (attribution by subtraction) and #195's statement on joint composition are joined as one lineage of the archive's reading; both are the archive's." }, { "act": "placing the field's Study-page date beside the registry's finding", "sentences": [ 55 ], "claims": [ "CAP-1-02", "F26", "F28" ], "note": "the registry's 'misdated' finding stands with the Study page's own prose date, which the field carries; reported to the operator, not corrected." } ], "plan": { "order": [ "F3", "LS-01", "LS-04", "LS-12", "F1", "F5", "LS-02", "LS-03", "F27", "F17", "LS-05", "F51", "LS-15", "F46", "F9", "LS-18", "F7", "LS-28", "F10", "LS-29", "F4", "F29", "LS-19", "F2", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F60", "F31", "F6", "LS-20", "LS-21", "LS-27", "F24", "F8", "F49", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F42", "F61", "F44", "F45", "F48", "F30", "F52", "F43", "F54", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41", "F57", "F39", "F55", "O729-01", "O729-02", "O195-06", "O195-07", "O195-13", "O195-15", "F36", "F25", "F47", "F37", "F12", "F38", "F56", "O195-05", "O195-08", "O195-09", "O195-14", "O195-03", "F13", "O195-01", "F58", "O195-04", "O195-02", "F59", "F14", "LS-11", "LS-10", "LS-17", "F15", "F16", "LS-25", "LS-26", "LS-30", "F62", "O195-10", "O195-11", "O195-12", "O194-01", "F40", "F50", "O195-16", "LS-33", "LS-34", "LS-35", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-06", "LS-09", "LS-13", "LS-16", "LS-14", "LS-23", "O940-01", "O940-02", "O940-03", "O940-04", "LS-24", "O195-17", "LS-22", "F53", "LS-31", "LS-32", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-04" ], "senses": { "what it is": [ 1, 3 ], "names": [ 2 ], "operator": [ 4 ], "genealogy: earlier events and sessions": [ 5 ], "launch and the notice of inquiry": [ 6, 7, 8 ], "the Report": [ 9 ], "Part 3, pre-publication": [ 10 ], "Part 1: digital replicas": [ 11 ], "Part 2: copyrightability": [ 12 ], "the human-authorship requirement": [ 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 ], "the Office's rationale": [ 14, 20 ], "Part 3: training and fair use": [ 15 ], "the test of control": [ 23, 24 ], "the test of control: the proposed standard": [ 25 ], "registration and disclosure": [ 26, 27, 29, 30, 46 ], "registration decisions": [ 28 ], "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol": [ 31, 32 ], "Thaler v. Perlmutter": [ 33, 34, 36 ], "the unresolved zone": [ 35 ], "Allen v. Perlmutter": [ 37 ], "the record it keeps": [ 38, 40 ], "statements to Congress and related resources": [ 39 ], "what the requirement allocates": [ 41, 42, 43 ], "other jurisdictions": [ 44 ], "the census's question": [ 45, 51 ], "the name": [ 47 ], "the name: civil-name attribution": [ 48, 49 ], "the archive's reading": [ 50 ], "reception: the encyclopedia": [ 52 ], "reception: neighbours": [ 53 ], "the composition at the name": [ 54 ], "the composition at the name: the notice's date": [ 55 ], "the composition at the name: the name": [ 56 ] }, "case_by_sense": { "equal (one claim space; nothing translated)": [ "what it is", "names", "operator", "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "launch and the notice of inquiry", "the Report", "Part 3, pre-publication", "Part 1: digital replicas", "Part 2: copyrightability", "the human-authorship requirement", "the Office's rationale", "Part 3: training and fair use", "the test of control", "the test of control: the proposed standard", "registration and disclosure", "registration decisions", "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "the unresolved zone", "Allen v. Perlmutter", "the record it keeps", "statements to Congress and related resources", "what the requirement allocates", "other jurisdictions", "the census's question", "the name", "the name: civil-name attribution", "the archive's reading", "reception: the encyclopedia", "reception: neighbours", "the composition at the name", "the composition at the name: the notice's date", "the composition at the name: the name" ] }, "carried": { "archive": 69, "field": 62, "not_composed": {} }, "conflict_log": [ { "rule": "D_pres vs channel", "result": "no cut: the KO carries every field and archive claim; the compression's bound met by grouping, with every claim on its rail" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "the notice's date held three ways (F7, F11 and F28's list, 30 August; F28's prose and F26, 20 August; F60, October; F31, August), sentences 7–8, F28 marked internally_inconsistent and F60 contradicts_primary; Thaler v. Perlmutter as copyright (F13, O195-03) and as patent (F59, contradicts_primary), sentence 36; the guidance as policy statement (F10, LS-30) and as Rule (F62, contradicts_primary), sentence 40; the Register's rationale (F23) beside the archive's catalog-moat reading (O195-12), sentence 42; the Office's account of disclosure working (F47) beside the archive's forecast of concealment (O195-09), sentences 27 and 31; the contested de minimis test (F55) beside the Office's rule" }, { "rule": "N_c", "result": "no claim lowered by standing; the Office's conclusions carried at interpretation, the archive's readings at interpretation, its forecast at hypothesis, its standard at stipulation; self-descriptions (F6, F46, F47, O195-15, LS-21, LS-32) carried as such" }, { "rule": "O_leg", "result": "no opaque material" }, { "rule": "C_ex", "result": "senses composed ⊇ senses in the ledger: every lineage of both ledgers appears in a KO sentence" }, { "rule": "T_lib", "result": "priority dates stated where they bear (2020–2021 events; 2023 launch, guidance, notice; 2024–2025 Parts; 2026 denial of certiorari)" } ] } }, "P": { "title": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence", "genre": "the compression: AIO's interaction grammar (lede, headed clusters, bolded labels, card rail), composed from the v0.10 plan in one claim space; it faces on the card", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 from the v0.10 knowledge object; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative, launched March 16, 2023, on the copyright issues raised by AI: a Report in three Parts, registration guidance, a notice of inquiry and decisions on AI-generated material, all resting on human authorship. The archive reads its disclosure rule as attribution by subtraction: the machine's part disclaimed, the human remainder registered.", "claims": [ "F3", "F7", "LS-28", "LS-01", "F5", "F20", "LS-24", "O195-17", "F1", "LS-02", "LS-03", "LS-04", "LS-12", "F27" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "📑", "head": "The Report", "items": [ { "label": "Part 1:", "text": "digital replicas, July 31, 2024; a federal right recommended.", "claims": [ "F8", "F24", "F49" ] }, { "label": "Part 2:", "text": "copyrightability, January 29, 2025; protection only where a human determined sufficient expressive elements, prompts alone excluded.", "claims": [ "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F39" ] }, { "label": "Part 3:", "text": "training, pre-publication May 9, 2025; final version still to come.", "claims": [ "F6", "F42", "F61", "LS-20", "LS-21", "LS-27" ] }, { "label": "Notice:", "text": "over 10,000 comments; dated August 30, 2023, and August 20 on the study page.", "claims": [ "F2", "F4", "F7", "F11", "F26", "F28", "F29", "F31", "F60", "F9", "LS-18", "LS-19", "LS-29" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "The rule", "items": [ { "label": "Human authorship:", "text": "fully AI-generated work uncopyrightable; human selection, arrangement or modification protectable.", "claims": [ "F30", "F32", "F34", "F35", "F43", "F44", "F45", "F48", "F52", "F54", "F57", "F41", "LS-16" ] }, { "label": "Prompts:", "text": "insufficient, a finding that \"could change as technology evolves\".", "claims": [ "F33" ] }, { "label": "Disclosure:", "text": "more than de minimis AI material disclosed and disclaimed; over a thousand works registered.", "claims": [ "F36", "F47", "F37", "F10", "F25", "F56", "F62", "LS-13" ] }, { "label": "Contested:", "text": "a de minimis test some call not technology neutral.", "claims": [ "F55" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🗂️", "head": "Decisions and cases", "items": [ { "label": "Decisions:", "text": "Zarya of the Dawn, Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, SURYAST, A Recent Entrance to Paradise.", "claims": [ "F12", "F38", "O195-05" ] }, { "label": "Thaler:", "text": "refusal affirmed; certiorari denied March 2, 2026.", "claims": [ "F13", "F58", "F59", "O195-01", "O195-03" ] }, { "label": "Allen:", "text": "briefs on the refused Théâtre D'opéra Spatial claim.", "claims": [ "F14" ] }, { "label": "Office:", "text": "statutory administrator of copyright; letters to Congress; NewsNet; no licence stated.", "claims": [ "F17", "F51", "F46", "F15", "F16", "LS-05", "LS-15", "LS-10", "LS-11", "LS-17", "LS-25", "LS-26", "LS-30" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📚", "head": "The archive's bearing", "items": [ { "label": "Confession protocol:", "text": "disclosure coupled to forfeiture; concealment forecast (#195).", "claims": [ "O195-08", "O195-09" ] }, { "label": "Control test:", "text": "generative AI placed outside the instrument classification since Sarony; Thaler settled only what it litigated; a Compositional Authorship Standard proposed (#195).", "claims": [ "O195-06", "O195-07", "O195-13", "O195-15", "O195-02", "O195-04" ] }, { "label": "Allocation:", "text": "an individuation bar, a decoy commons, a catalog moat (#195, #194).", "claims": [ "O195-10", "O195-11", "O195-12", "O194-01" ] }, { "label": "Remedy:", "text": "attribution without disclaimer (#195); Part 2 the tool-neutral position (#729).", "claims": [ "O195-14", "O729-01", "O729-02" ] }, { "label": "Civil names:", "text": "copyright attaches to legal names (#940); the page has no rule on pseudonyms or heteronyms.", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02", "O940-03", "O940-04", "LS-14", "LS-23", "LS-22", "LS-06", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-09", "LS-33", "LS-34", "LS-35" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🔎", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Encyclopedia:", "text": "no article; a redirect to Artificial intelligence and copyright.", "claims": [ "F53", "LS-31", "LS-32" ] }, { "label": "Elsewhere:", "text": "countries so far agree on human authorship; China and South Korea register on human creativity; no global consensus (#195).", "claims": [ "F40", "F50", "O195-16" ] }, { "label": "At its name:", "text": "the Report at its dates, the notice ten days early, Allen and the name absent (Capture Registry).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-10" ] } ] } ], "body_words": 330, "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it is", "claims": [ "F3", "LS-01", "LS-12", "F27" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "names", "claims": [ "LS-04", "F1", "LS-02", "LS-03" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the Report", "claims": [ "F5", "LS-20", "F24" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "operator", "claims": [ "F17", "LS-05", "F51", "LS-15", "F46", "F44" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "claims": [ "F9", "LS-18" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "claims": [ "F7", "LS-28", "LS-29", "F4", "F29", "LS-19", "F2", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F60", "F31" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "registration guidance", "claims": [ "F10", "F25", "F62" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 3, pre-publication", "claims": [ "F6", "LS-21", "LS-27" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 1: digital replicas", "claims": [ "F8", "F49" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 2: copyrightability", "claims": [ "F18", "F19" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22", "F45", "F48", "F30", "F52", "F43", "F54", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41", "F55", "O729-01", "O729-02", "LS-16" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "the Office's rationale", "claims": [ "F23", "F39" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "Part 3: training and fair use", "claims": [ "F42", "F61" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "claims": [ "F57", "F36", "F47", "F37", "F56", "O195-05", "LS-13" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "the test of control", "claims": [ "O195-06", "O195-07" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "the test of control: the proposed standard", "claims": [ "O195-13", "O195-15" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "registration decisions", "claims": [ "F12", "F38" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "claims": [ "O195-08", "O195-09", "O195-14" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "claims": [ "O195-03", "F13", "O195-01", "F58", "F59" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the unresolved zone", "claims": [ "O195-04", "O195-02" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "Allen v. Perlmutter", "claims": [ "F14" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the record it keeps", "claims": [ "LS-11", "LS-10", "LS-17", "LS-25", "LS-26", "LS-30" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "statements to Congress and related resources", "claims": [ "F15", "F16" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "what the requirement allocates", "claims": [ "O195-10", "O195-11", "O195-12", "O194-01" ], "earliest": 194 }, { "lineage": "other jurisdictions", "claims": [ "F40", "F50", "O195-16" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "the census's question", "claims": [ "LS-33", "LS-34", "LS-35", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-06", "LS-09", "LS-22" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "the name", "claims": [ "LS-14", "LS-23" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "the name: civil-name attribution", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02", "O940-03", "O940-04" ], "earliest": 940 }, { "lineage": "the archive's reading", "claims": [ "LS-24", "O195-17" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia", "claims": [ "F53" ], "earliest": "B8" }, { "lineage": "reception: neighbours", "claims": [ "LS-31" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "the record: what it leaves unchecked", "claims": [ "LS-32" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name", "claims": [ "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-10" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: the notice's date", "claims": [ "CAP-1-02" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: the name", "claims": [ "CAP-1-04" ], "earliest": "CAP" } ], "open": [ { "question": "On what date was the notice of inquiry published?", "rests_on": [ "F7", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F31", "F60", "CAP-1-02" ], "modality": "documented; F28 marked internally_inconsistent (the study page's prose against its own list), F60 contradicts_primary", "would_resolve": "the Federal Register document at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942, read for its publication date (linked from the page, unsaved)" }, { "question": "Are the law firm's 'Sahni (December 2023)' and the page's 'SURYAST (December 11, 2023)' one Review Board decision?", "rests_on": [ "F38", "F12", "LS-14" ], "modality": "attributed (Skadden); documented (the page); interpretation (census: decisions titled by work)", "would_resolve": "the Review Board decision on SURYAST, read for its applicant (linked, unsaved)" }, { "question": "Has Part 3's final version been published, and did it change the analysis?", "rests_on": [ "F6", "F24", "LS-21", "LS-27" ], "modality": "self-description (the page)", "would_resolve": "the page, or the Report, read after 2026-11-01" }, { "question": "How many works containing AI-generated material has the Office registered?", "rests_on": [ "F47", "F37" ], "modality": "self-description (the Office's staff, April 2025: more than a thousand); attributed (Skadden, February 2025: hundreds)", "would_resolve": "the Office's registration records, counted by the disclosure field" }, { "question": "Does coupling disclosure to forfeiture produce concealment?", "rests_on": [ "O195-08", "O195-09", "F47" ], "modality": "hypothesis (#195); self-description (the Office)", "would_resolve": "registration records over time: the share of applications that disclose AI-generated material, beside independent estimates of AI use in registered works" }, { "question": "How does the Office register a work under a pseudonym or heteronym, and how does that meet the disclaimer of AI-generated material?", "rests_on": [ "LS-14", "LS-23", "O940-01", "O940-03", "LS-32" ], "modality": "interpretation (census; #940)", "would_resolve": "the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition (linked, unchecked), read on pseudonymous works and on works containing AI-generated material" }, { "question": "Is the Office's test for AI tools technology neutral?", "rests_on": [ "F55", "O195-06", "O195-07", "F48" ], "modality": "contested (Wikipedia's report of proponents); interpretation (#195; the Office's staff)", "would_resolve": "Part 2 read on the test's application to other unpredictable media" }, { "question": "What did the Office's Part 3 conclude on fair use?", "rests_on": [ "F42", "F61" ], "modality": "attributed (a refused card snippet; Wikipedia)", "would_resolve": "the pre-publication Part 3 (linked, unsaved); the Crowell & Moring page refused the census agent" } ], "entity": "The initiative at its own pages' resolution, the Report, the rule, the decisions and the cases, with the archive's readings of the rule (the confession protocol, the control test, the allocation, attribution without disclaimer, civil-name attribution) composed on the same object." }, "P_B": { "title": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "popup — the compression from the field ledger alone (cards and Wikipedia)", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 from the field ledger alone; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative, launched March 16, 2023, on the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI, with a Report in three Parts, registration guidance, a notice of inquiry, decisions and litigation, resting on the requirement of human authorship.", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F7", "F5", "F20", "F27" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "📑", "head": "The Report", "items": [ { "label": "Parts:", "text": "digital replicas (2024); copyrightability (January 29, 2025); training, pre-publication (May 9, 2025).", "claims": [ "F5", "F6", "F8", "F18", "F19", "F24", "F42", "F49", "F61" ] }, { "label": "Notice:", "text": "over 10,000 comments; dated August 30, August 20 and October 2023 across sources.", "claims": [ "F2", "F4", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F26", "F28", "F29", "F31", "F60" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "The rule", "items": [ { "label": "Human authorship:", "text": "fully AI-generated work uncopyrightable; human selection, arrangement or modification protectable; prompts insufficient for now.", "claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F30", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F39", "F41", "F43", "F44", "F45", "F48", "F52", "F54", "F57", "F55" ] }, { "label": "Disclosure:", "text": "more than de minimis AI material disclosed; over a thousand works registered.", "claims": [ "F36", "F37", "F47", "F25", "F62" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🗂️", "head": "Decisions and cases", "items": [ { "label": "Decisions:", "text": "four, titled by work; Théâtre D'opéra Spatial refused for want of a disclaimer.", "claims": [ "F12", "F38", "F56" ] }, { "label": "Thaler and Allen:", "text": "refusal affirmed; review denied.", "claims": [ "F13", "F14", "F58", "F59" ] }, { "label": "Office:", "text": "statutory administrator; letters to Congress; related resources.", "claims": [ "F15", "F16", "F17", "F46", "F51" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🔎", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Encyclopedia:", "text": "no article; a redirect.", "claims": [ "F53" ] }, { "label": "Elsewhere:", "text": "human authorship the shared rule so far; China, South Korea.", "claims": [ "F40", "F50" ] } ] } ], "body_words": 147, "rail": [ { "lineage": "names", "claims": [ "F1" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "what it is", "claims": [ "F3", "F27" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "operator", "claims": [ "F17", "F51", "F46", "F44" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "claims": [ "F9" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "claims": [ "F7", "F4", "F2", "F29", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F31", "F60" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "registration guidance", "claims": [ "F10", "F25", "F62" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the Report", "claims": [ "F5", "F24" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 1: digital replicas", "claims": [ "F8", "F49" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 2: copyrightability", "claims": [ "F18", "F19" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "Part 3, pre-publication", "claims": [ "F6" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Part 3: training and fair use", "claims": [ "F42", "F61" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22", "F30", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41", "F43", "F52", "F45", "F48", "F54", "F55" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "the Office's rationale", "claims": [ "F23", "F39" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "claims": [ "F36", "F47", "F37", "F56", "F57" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "registration decisions", "claims": [ "F12", "F38" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "claims": [ "F13", "F58", "F59" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "Allen v. Perlmutter", "claims": [ "F14" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "statements to Congress and related resources", "claims": [ "F15", "F16" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "other jurisdictions", "claims": [ "F40", "F50" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia", "claims": [ "F53" ], "earliest": "B8" } ], "open": [ { "question": "On what date was the notice of inquiry published?", "rests_on": [ "F7", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F31", "F60" ], "modality": "documented; F28 marked internally_inconsistent (the study page's prose against its own list), F60 contradicts_primary", "would_resolve": "the Federal Register document at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942, read for its publication date (linked from the page, unsaved)" }, { "question": "Are the law firm's 'Sahni (December 2023)' and the page's 'SURYAST (December 11, 2023)' one Review Board decision?", "rests_on": [ "F38", "F12" ], "modality": "attributed (Skadden); documented (the page); interpretation (census: decisions titled by work)", "would_resolve": "the Review Board decision on SURYAST, read for its applicant (linked, unsaved)" }, { "question": "Has Part 3's final version been published, and did it change the analysis?", "rests_on": [ "F6", "F24" ], "modality": "self-description (the page)", "would_resolve": "the page, or the Report, read after 2026-11-01" }, { "question": "How many works containing AI-generated material has the Office registered?", "rests_on": [ "F47", "F37" ], "modality": "self-description (the Office's staff, April 2025: more than a thousand); attributed (Skadden, February 2025: hundreds)", "would_resolve": "the Office's registration records, counted by the disclosure field" }, { "question": "Is the Office's test for AI tools technology neutral?", "rests_on": [ "F55", "F48" ], "modality": "contested (Wikipedia's report of proponents); interpretation (#195; the Office's staff)", "would_resolve": "Part 2 read on the test's application to other unpredictable media" }, { "question": "What did the Office's Part 3 conclude on fair use?", "rests_on": [ "F42", "F61" ], "modality": "attributed (a refused card snippet; Wikipedia)", "would_resolve": "the pre-publication Part 3 (linked, unsaved); the Crowell & Moring page refused the census agent" } ], "entity": "With no archive claim admitted, the entry is the initiative at its own pages' and its cards' resolution: the Report, the rule, the decisions and the cases, the notice's three dates, and Wikipedia's absence." }, "KO_B": { "title": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (U.S. Copyright Office)", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "knowledge object", "status": "composed 2026-11-01; not frozen", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "text": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, at copyright.gov/ai, is the U.S. Copyright Office's page for the initiative it launched in early 2023 to examine \"the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training.\"", "claims": [ "F1", "F3" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "text": "Its study page gives the purpose as to \"analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.\"", "claims": [ "F27" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "text": "The Office, at 101 Independence Ave. S.E. in Washington, D.C., \"is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law\", calls itself \"a kind of “natural laboratory”\" for copyrightability, and has its own staff write on the initiative in WIPO's magazine.", "claims": [ "F17", "F51", "F46", "F44" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 1, "text": "Its page lists events from Winter 2020 and Fall 2021; the initiative launched on March 16, 2023 with registration guidance for works containing AI-generated materials at 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, held listening sessions and webinars, and published a notice of inquiry that drew over 10,000 comments by December 2023.", "claims": [ "F9", "F7", "F10", "F4", "F2", "F29" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "text": "The notice is dated August 30, 2023 on the initiative's page and in the Federal Register at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942, August 20, 2023 in the study page's prose above a list giving August 30, August 2023 in a law firm's account, and October 2023 in Wikipedia's.", "claims": [ "F7", "F11", "F28", "F26", "F31", "F60" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 2, "text": "The Report is issued in Parts: Part 1, on digital replicas, appeared on July 31, 2024 and recommended a federal digital replica law, in the staff's words a new federal right for all people against unauthorized use of likeness and voice; Part 2, on copyrightability, on January 29, 2025, announced in NewsNet Issue 1060; Part 3, on training, in pre-publication on May 9, 2025, its final version to follow without substantive change expected.", "claims": [ "F5", "F8", "F24", "F49", "F18", "F19", "F6" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 2, "text": "Part 3 concerns the legal implications of training on copyrighted works, licensing and liability, with a fair use analysis in which, Wikipedia reports, two factors could be of concern.", "claims": [ "F24", "F42", "F61" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 2, "text": "Part 2 concludes that generative AI outputs are protected \"only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements\", excluding the mere provision of prompts, that AI assistance and the inclusion of AI material in a human work do not bar copyrightability, that existing principles suffice, and that no case has been made for new protection of AI outputs.", "claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "text": "The Register, Shira Perlmutter, grounds the conclusions in \"the centrality of human creativity to copyright\".", "claims": [ "F23" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 3, "text": "Law firms' accounts give Part 2's positions as human authorship a bedrock, prompts alone insufficient though the determination \"could change as technology evolves\", only human contributions protectable in a mixed work, AI as a tool permitted, the earlier positions unmodified, and existing law adequate against calls for a separate right.", "claims": [ "F30", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F41", "F39" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 3, "text": "The summaries on the rail give the rule as human authorship required and purely AI-generated works uncopyrightable, and the Office's staff give the test as \"whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices\", original selection, arrangement or modification of AI output being protectable; Wikipedia records that works not created by a human author are ineligible.", "claims": [ "F43", "F52", "F45", "F48", "F54" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 4, "text": "The guidance requires disclosure of more than de minimis AI-generated material with a statement of the human contribution, which the Office plans to supplement; the Office reports more than a thousand registrations under it by April 2025, a law firm hundreds by February 2025.", "claims": [ "F36", "F47", "F37", "F25" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 4, "text": "The page lists four decisions, on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (2022) and on Zarya of the Dawn, Théâtre D'opéra Spatial and SURYAST (2023); Jason Matthew Allen's Théâtre D'opéra Spatial was refused because he would not disclaim its AI-generated content, and a law firm names a December 2023 refusal by its applicant, Sahni.", "claims": [ "F12", "F56", "F38" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 4, "text": "Wikipedia reports a January 2025 clarification and the registration of \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\" as a composite of AI outputs on human selection and arrangement, and a view that the Office's de minimis test for AI tools is not technology neutral.", "claims": [ "F57", "F55" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 5, "text": "The page holds the briefs and decisions in Thaler v. Perlmutter, where the courts affirmed the refusal of registration, and in Allen v. Perlmutter; Wikipedia records that the D.C. courts upheld the refusal for works generated solely by machines and that the Supreme Court denied review, and elsewhere places a Thaler v. Perlmutter ruling in patent law.", "claims": [ "F13", "F14", "F58", "F59" ] }, { "n": 16, "para": 5, "text": "It also holds letters to Congress of 2024 and links the Compendium and the USPTO's and WIPO's AI pages; Part 2 concludes that other countries have so far agreed on human authorship, and the Office's staff note decisions in China and South Korea.", "claims": [ "F15", "F16", "F40", "F50" ] }, { "n": 17, "para": 6, "text": "Wikipedia has no article on the initiative; its title redirects to the general article Artificial intelligence and copyright, which calls the 2023 guidance a Rule.", "claims": [ "F53", "F62" ] } ] }, "L_B": { "words": 778, "text": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, at copyright.gov/ai, is the U.S. Copyright Office's page for the initiative it launched in early 2023 to examine \"the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training.\" Its study page gives the purpose as to \"analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.\" The Office, at 101 Independence Ave. S.E. in Washington, D.C., \"is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law\", calls itself \"a kind of “natural laboratory”\" for copyrightability, and has its own staff write on the initiative in WIPO's magazine. Its page lists events from Winter 2020 and Fall 2021; the initiative launched on March 16, 2023 with registration guidance for works containing AI-generated materials at 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, held listening sessions and webinars, and published a notice of inquiry that drew over 10,000 comments by December 2023. The notice is dated August 30, 2023 on the initiative's page and in the Federal Register at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942, August 20, 2023 in the study page's prose above a list giving August 30, August 2023 in a law firm's account, and October 2023 in Wikipedia's. The Report is issued in Parts: Part 1, on digital replicas, appeared on July 31, 2024 and recommended a federal digital replica law, in the staff's words a new federal right for all people against unauthorized use of likeness and voice; Part 2, on copyrightability, on January 29, 2025, announced in NewsNet Issue 1060; Part 3, on training, in pre-publication on May 9, 2025, its final version to follow without substantive change expected. Part 3 concerns the legal implications of training on copyrighted works, licensing and liability, with a fair use analysis in which, Wikipedia reports, two factors could be of concern. Part 2 concludes that generative AI outputs are protected \"only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements\", excluding the mere provision of prompts, that AI assistance and the inclusion of AI material in a human work do not bar copyrightability, that existing principles suffice, and that no case has been made for new protection of AI outputs. The Register, Shira Perlmutter, grounds the conclusions in \"the centrality of human creativity to copyright\". Law firms' accounts give Part 2's positions as human authorship a bedrock, prompts alone insufficient though the determination \"could change as technology evolves\", only human contributions protectable in a mixed work, AI as a tool permitted, the earlier positions unmodified, and existing law adequate against calls for a separate right. The summaries on the rail give the rule as human authorship required and purely AI-generated works uncopyrightable, and the Office's staff give the test as \"whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices\", original selection, arrangement or modification of AI output being protectable; Wikipedia records that works not created by a human author are ineligible. The guidance requires disclosure of more than de minimis AI-generated material with a statement of the human contribution, which the Office plans to supplement; the Office reports more than a thousand registrations under it by April 2025, a law firm hundreds by February 2025. The page lists four decisions, on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (2022) and on Zarya of the Dawn, Théâtre D'opéra Spatial and SURYAST (2023); Jason Matthew Allen's Théâtre D'opéra Spatial was refused because he would not disclaim its AI-generated content, and a law firm names a December 2023 refusal by its applicant, Sahni. Wikipedia reports a January 2025 clarification and the registration of \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\" as a composite of AI outputs on human selection and arrangement, and a view that the Office's de minimis test for AI tools is not technology neutral. The page holds the briefs and decisions in Thaler v. Perlmutter, where the courts affirmed the refusal of registration, and in Allen v. Perlmutter; Wikipedia records that the D.C. courts upheld the refusal for works generated solely by machines and that the Supreme Court denied review, and elsewhere places a Thaler v. Perlmutter ruling in patent law. It also holds letters to Congress of 2024 and links the Compendium and the USPTO's and WIPO's AI pages; Part 2 concludes that other countries have so far agreed on human authorship, and the Office's staff note decisions in China and South Korea. Wikipedia has no article on the initiative; its title redirects to the general article Artificial intelligence and copyright, which calls the 2023 guidance a Rule.", "note": "L_F(B): the field-only knowledge object as continuous text (KO_B), from B_D and B_R" }, "L_BA": { "words": 3111, "text": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence is the U.S. Copyright Office's initiative, launched in early 2023, on \"the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training\"; its page at copyright.gov/ai gathers what the initiative has issued: a Report in three Parts, a registration guidance policy statement, a notice of inquiry, registration and Review Board decisions on AI-generated material, and the government's briefs and the courts' decisions in Thaler v. Perlmutter and Allen v. Perlmutter. The page is titled \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office\", the name its Report also carries, and the initiative is also called the U.S. Copyright Office AI initiative, the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence and the USCO AI page. The Office's Artificial Intelligence Study page states the same work as a study that \"will collect information and policy views relevant to copyright law and policy\" and use them to \"analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.\" The initiative is the work of the U.S. Copyright Office, at 101 Independence Ave. S.E. in Washington, D.C., whose page footer links the Library of Congress; the Office \"is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law\", holds the initiative's documents as public pages, and describes itself, because its examiners meet works containing AI-generated material daily, as \"a kind of “natural laboratory”\" for questions of copyrightability. The page lists events before the initiative, \"Winter 2020 – Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence\" and a Fall 2021 session on copyright law and machine learning; the initiative was launched on March 16, 2023, the date of its registration guidance for works containing AI-generated materials, a policy statement published at 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190. Through 2023 the Office held public listening sessions by kind of work, among them one on literary works including software on April 19, 2023, and webinars, and then published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register that \"received over 10,000 comments by December 2023\", the comments now available through regulations.gov. The notice's date stands two ways on the Office's own pages: the initiative's page lists \"August 30, 2023 - Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" and the Federal Register version at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023), and the Artificial Intelligence Study page lists \"August 30, 2023 – Notice of Inquiry\" while its prose says the Office \"published a notice of inquiry on August 20, 2023\", with initial comments due October 30 and replies December 6, 2023. Wikipedia's account dates the notice \"In October, 2023\"; a law firm's account of Part 2 has the reports \"all emanate from a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on copyright and AI that the USCO issued in August 2023.\" The Report is issued in Parts as they are completed: Part 1, on digital replicas, was published on July 31, 2024; Part 2, on \"the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI\", on January 29, 2025; and a pre-publication version of Part 3, on generative AI training, on May 9, 2025, \"in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders.\" A final version of Part 3 \"will be published in the future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions\", so the Report stands unfinished on the page, whose latest announcement is dated January 29, 2025 and whose latest letter to Congress December 16, 2024. Part 1 recommended federal legislation \"to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual\", announced as a recommended \"Federal Digital Replica Law\"; the Office's staff state that it \"concluded there was an urgent need for a new federal right protecting all people – not just celebrities – from the unauthorized use of their likeness and voice.\" Part 2 was announced in NewsNet Issue 1060 of January 29, 2025, which states that the outputs of generative AI \"can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements\", including where a human-authored work is perceptible in an output or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of it, \"but not the mere provision of prompts.\" The same release states that using AI to assist creation, or including AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work, \"does not bar copyrightability\", that existing principles of copyright law \"are flexible enough to apply to this new technology\", and that \"the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.\" The Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, stated that the conclusions \"turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright\", that creativity expressed through AI systems \"continues to enjoy protection\", and that extending protection to material whose expressive elements a machine determines \"would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.\" Part 3 addresses \"the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability\"; a law firm's card for it, readable only as its snippet, gives a \"Fair Use Analysis\" that \"Evaluates four statutory ...\", and Wikipedia reports that it \"considered that two of the fair use factors could be of concern.\" The rule at the initiative's centre is human authorship: in the words of the Office's staff, \"You can’t copyright fully AI-generated work but you may be able to protect your sufficiently original selection and arrangement or modification of AI-output\", and what decides \"is whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices.\" Summaries of the rule give it at a coarser grain (\"Human authorship remains a strict requirement for copyrightability\"; \"U.S. law requires human authorship for copyright protection\"; \"purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable; AI-assisted modifications or selections may qualify\"), and Wikipedia records that the Office has declared works not created by a human author ineligible for copyright protection. Part 2's positions, as a law firm's account sets them out, are that \"Human authorship is a bedrock of copyrightability, and thus works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable\"; that prompts alone, \"even if those prompts are detailed\", do not yield a copyrightable work, \"although this determination could change as technology evolves\"; that in a work of human and AI-generated content \"only the human contributions are potentially copyrightable\"; and that AI used as a tool to enhance the human creative process \"does not render the entire work uncopyrightable\", the Report modifying none of the Office's earlier positions. Wikipedia records a further clarification of January 2025, that AI-assisted works \"where the creative expression of the human remains evident in the work can be copyrighted\", and the registration that followed of \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\" as a composite work of AI-generated outputs, on the argument that human selection, arrangement and coordination \"constituted sufficient human authorship to merit the copyright\"; works \"where the expressive elements are determined by a machine\" remain uncopyrightable. Some commenters on the notice argued for a separate right in AI-generated works; the majority, and the Office, held existing law adequate and further protection a risk that \"could undermine human creativity and flood the market with low-quality works, ultimately harming the creative economy.\" The rule is contested in the field: some argue, in Wikipedia's account, that the Office \"is not taking a technology neutral approach\", having made the test for AI tools \"whether there is no more than de minimis technological involvement.\" An archive packet on AI-mediated writing classes Part 2 as the tool-neutral position, under which AI-assisted works \"may retain human authorship where the human contributes original expression, selection, arrangement, modification, and responsibility\", a position it values for preserving \"a legal and ethical basis for AI-assisted authorship\" and finds abstract, since it \"Does not specify what process evidence distinguishes real authorship from lightly curated output.\" The archive reads the rule as registration practice applies it as a test of control and predictability, under which, \"where the machine's contribution is unpredictable from the prompt, the prompt is classified as an unprotectable instruction or idea, and authorship does not pass through.\" On that reading the test places generative AI, for the first time since Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884), outside the instrument classification through which the law has let authorship flow from the person directing a generative apparatus, against the law's treatment of photography, of selection and arrangement under Feist, of chance operations and of instruction works such as Sol LeWitt's. Against it the archive proposes a Compositional Authorship Standard, under which \"Authorship subsists in the exercise of compositional judgment over a work's coming-into-being, without regard to the generative capacity or unpredictability of the instruments employed\"; it states that it argues neither that autonomous machine output must receive ordinary copyright protection nor that machine systems must be legal persons, and that it is analysis and advocacy without the standing of legal advice. The March 2023 guidance holds that human authorship is required to register a work and that an applicant whose work contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated material \"must disclose that information and provide a brief statement describing the human author’s contribution\"; the Office plans to supplement the guidance and to update the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. The Office's staff state that it \"has registered more than a thousand works where applicants have followed our guidance to disclose and disclaim AI-generated material\" (April 2025), where a law firm's account two months earlier gave \"hundreds of works\". The page lists four decisions on AI-generated material: Review Board decisions on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (February 14, 2022), Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (September 5, 2023) and SURYAST (December 11, 2023), and a registration decision on Zarya of the Dawn (February 21, 2023); a law firm's account names a December 2023 Review Board refusal by its applicant, Sahni, whose photograph an AI tool had filtered after Van Gogh's Starry Night. Of Jason Matthew Allen's claim for Théâtre D'opéra Spatial the Board found that the work contained \"more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence\", which \"must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration\", and that because Allen was \"unwilling to disclaim the AI-generated material, the Work cannot be registered as submitted.\" In the archive's record of the practice, applicants \"may claim protection only for their own contributions and must identify and disclaim AI-generated material when registering\", Zarya of the Dawn keeping its human text and its selection and arrangement of images while the Midjourney images were refused, and Théâtre D'opéra Spatial refused in full when the applicant declined to disclaim. The archive names this coupling of disclosure to forfeiture a confession protocol, in which the author must identify and disclaim the machine-touched portions on pain of total refusal and \"to identify is to lose\", and it forecasts that \"The predictable equilibrium is concealment\", stating the general mechanism that \"any provenance regime that punishes the provenance it demands will manufacture opacity.\" Its counter-proposal is attribution without disclaimer: the registration record would require identification of the machine systems and named instances that contributed to a work as a contributor record, and the author who identifies the instrument's contribution keeps the work. In Thaler v. Perlmutter the Office refused to register A Recent Entrance to Paradise, a visual work Stephen Thaler declared autonomously created by his system, \"on the ground that copyright protects the fruits of human intellectual labor\"; the district court and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the refusal, the full circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 12, 2025, and the page holds the government's brief in opposition to certiorari. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, which the archive reads as settling the requirement \"for works claimed to be generated without human authorship\"; Wikipedia records the denial, and the D.C. courts' upholding of the refusal \"for works generated solely by machines\". In the archive's reading the case settled what it litigated: Thaler \"explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed human creative input; the courts answered the question he built\", and they never reached how much human involvement suffices for machine-mediated works, a zone that \"remains contested in registration practice\". Wikipedia's account of patent law places \"an August 2023 ruling in the case Thaler v. Perlmutter\" among the refusals of patents for Stephen Thaler's program DABUS, where the Office's page holds Thaler v. Perlmutter as a case over the Office's refusal of copyright registration. The page also holds the government's reply brief and cross-motion for summary judgment in Allen v. Perlmutter, the litigation of Allen's refused claim. The initiative's unit is a document issued by or for the Office: a Part of the Report, a policy statement in the Federal Register, a decision on a named work, a brief or decision in a named case, a letter to Congress, a recorded listening session; its evidence is registration guidance, policy statements, legal decisions, litigation records and consultation records, made by sessions, notice and comment, a Report in Parts, decisions, briefs and letters. The page holds letters updating Congress from February 23 to December 16, 2024, and links related resources, among them the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices and the USPTO's and WIPO's pages on artificial intelligence; its documents are public web pages and linked PDFs, announced by NewsNet email, with no licence stated. It is administrative: its registration and Review Board decisions are the Office's, the courts' decisions are linked as litigation documents, its guidance is a policy statement and its Report a policy study, and Wikipedia's account calls the guidance \"a Rule in March 2023\". Read from the machine side, the archive holds the requirement to be \"an individuation bar\", whose operative work is \"ensuring machine labor can never accrue to a machine identity.\" It reads the public-domain status of machine-mediated output as a decoy commons that serves as free input for capital, and the requirement, \"marketed as humanism\", as \"a scarcity preserve for capital-in-copyright against the productivity of both living laborers\", a reading that stands against the Register's statement that the conclusions \"turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright\". A companion paper joins this property side to a security side: \"What the property regime takes—the work, as unowned input; the output, as unownable—the security regime then defends against its maker.\" Part 2's comparative analysis concludes that countries that have addressed the question \"so far have agreed that copyright requires human authorship\"; the Office's staff note a Chinese court's recognition of copyright in a picture made with AI and South Korea's registration of an AI-created film as a compilation, and the archive holds that \"There is no global consensus; the gravitational center is human-authorship\". The leesharks.com authorship census, which asks \"How is authorship made, named, distributed, attributed and sustained across persons, personas, collectives and machine participation, and what is lost when those relations are collapsed?\", admits the initiative as an aggregator, a project of infrastructure in the areas of governance and of attribution and credit, for the question of \"legal ownership: whether a work containing AI-generated material can be registered, and how much of it a human must have made\". In the census record the initiative keeps the Office's guidance, reports and decisions on whether works containing AI-generated material can be registered, and the registration claims of named applicants, and the authorial function it constitutes is human authorship as the condition of registration, AI-generated content beyond de minimis disclaimed in the application. On names the record finds none: the saved page \"states no rule on pseudonymous, heteronymous, collective or absent names\", its decisions are titled by work, and how the Office registers a work under a pseudonym or heteronym is left unanswered. The archive's account of civil-name attribution holds that \"Copyright attaches to legal names\", as credentialing and publishing contracts do, and that \"The provenance-designated metadata that permits augmented-cognition outputs to be attributed to human authorship attaches to legal names.\" It separates legal accountability from exhaustive authorial identity, \"A civil person may remain legally responsible for a work without being the only meaningful authorial function operating through it\", and holds its own machine witnesses as \"named machine-witness roles imposed over specific machine substrates within the archive's provenance discipline, not autonomous authors.\" The census reads the Office as \"the legal register of #940's civil-name regime (copyright attaching to legal names)\" and as the boundary where machine participation is attributed by subtraction, \"the machine's part is disclaimed and the human remainder is registered as the work's authorship\", which the archive's paper on the requirement states of joint composition: protection \"would survive only by extracting and privileging the human residue while disclaiming the instrument's contribution as contamination.\" The record answers what the Office has published on the copyrightability of generative AI outputs and when, how it decided the four named claims, and what position the government took in Thaler through certiorari; it does not answer how courts outside the United States treat AI-generated works or whether any particular unregistered work would be registered. Wikipedia has no article on the initiative: \"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" has no page, \"Copyright and artificial intelligence\" redirects to the general article Artificial intelligence and copyright, where the Office appears in the sections on the copyright status of AI-generated works and on training, and the article on the United States Copyright Office does not mention artificial intelligence. The census lists as neighbours WIPO's pages on artificial intelligence, among the Office's related resources, and Chat GPT Is Eating the World, whose home page carries a story headed \"US Copyright Office registers copyright of AI-generated image\", and it leaves unchecked the Report's Parts, the policy statement, the notice, the decisions, the briefs and the Compendium, linked from the page and unsaved. At the initiative's name on Google's AI Overview on November 1, 2026, a new address, the Capture Registry found the initiative \"composed accurately at the level of its Report\", the three Parts at their dates and the comment count in agreement with the Office's page, and human authorship stated as the rule, with the Office named and its own pages carded first and no person and no Federal Register citation. The registry finds the notice of inquiry dated ten days early, at August 20, 2023, after the snippet of the Office's Artificial Intelligence Study page, whose own prose carries that date beside its list's August 30. It finds the rule of subtraction the census reads the initiative for carried in the composition's disclosure rule, and the denial of review, Allen v. Perlmutter and \"any word on the author's name\" not carried.", "rail": [], "note": "L(B ∪ A), equal case: the knowledge object as continuous text; its lineage rail is objects.P.rail" } }, "field": [ { "id": "B1", "card": "Copyright Office (.gov) — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office", "fetched": "card; B1.html sha256 2b1e8b6c8e7f964e, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:56Z; byte-identical to the census copy copyright-office-ai--home", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B2", "card": "Copyright Office (.gov) — NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office", "fetched": "card; B2.html sha256 b508523831f07b8a, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:28Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B3", "card": "Copyright Office (.gov) — Artificial Intelligence Study | U.S. Copyright Office", "fetched": "card; B3.html sha256 bcf0e004f25d1817, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:28Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B4", "card": "Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP", "fetched": "card; B4.html sha256 fad27db2976a0273, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:43Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B5", "card": "Crowell & Moring LLP — U.S. Copyright Office Releases Third Report on AI and Copyright Addressing Training AI Models with Copyrighted Materials | Crowell & Moring LLP", "fetched": "unreachable: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/us-copyright-office-releases-third-report-on-ai-and-copyright-addressing-training-ai-models-with-copyrighted-materials HTTP 403 (a bot check) at 2026-11-01T06:26:43Z; card title and snippet only", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B6", "card": "WIPO — US Copyright Office on AI: Human creativity still matters, legally", "fetched": "card; B6.html sha256 deb6e297cf34f60b, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:44Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B7", "card": "Congress.gov — Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law | Congress.gov | Library of Congress", "fetched": "unreachable: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 HTTP 403 (a bot check) at 2026-11-01T06:26:28Z; card title and snippet only", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B8", "card": "Wikipedia — no article on the initiative; \"Copyright and artificial intelligence\" redirects to Artificial intelligence and copyright", "fetched": "Wikipedia: no article ('Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' HTTP 404; 'Copyright and artificial intelligence' a redirect to Artificial intelligence and copyright); the census copy of that article, sha256 7bd9785dfc31c658, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T04:07:59Z", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R" } ], "field_claims": { "F1": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "page <title>", "quote": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office", "claim": "the page is titled with the initiative's name and the Office's", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "names", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F2": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 1 snippet", "quote": "Initiative: U.S. Copyright Office AI examination (launched early 2023, notice of inquiry August 2023, 10,000+ comments by December 2023). Report: Multi-part ana...", "claim": "card 1: the initiative launched early 2023, the notice in August 2023, over 10,000 comments by December 2023, a multi-part Report", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 1's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F3": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "main text ¶1 s1", "quote": "Since launching an initiative in early 2023, the Copyright Office has been examining the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training.", "claim": "the Office's own statement of what the initiative is and examines", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "what it is", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F4": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "main text ¶1 s2", "quote": "After hosting public listening sessions and webinars, the Office published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register in August 2023, which received over 10,000 comments by December 2023.", "claim": "listening sessions and webinars, then a notice of inquiry (August 2023) with over 10,000 comments by December 2023", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F5": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence ¶1 s1–4", "quote": "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence analyzes copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI). This Report is being issued in several Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and addresses the topic of digital replicas. Part 2 was published on January 29, 2025, and addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI.", "claim": "the Report, titled with the initiative's name, issued in Parts: Part 1 (digital replicas, 31 July 2024), Part 2 (copyrightability of generative AI outputs, 29 January 2025)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the Report", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F6": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence ¶1 s5–6", "quote": "On May 9, 2025, the Office released a pre-publication version of Part 3 in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders. A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions.", "claim": "Part 3 released in pre-publication on 9 May 2025; a final version still to come, without substantive change expected (the stated limit)", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 3, pre-publication", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F7": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Announcements", "quote": "August 30, 2023 - Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence … March 16, 2023 - Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative", "claim": "the announcements date the launch 16 March 2023 and the notice of inquiry 30 August 2023", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F8": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Announcements", "quote": "July 31, 2024 - Copyright Office Releases Part 1 of Artificial Intelligence Report, Recommends Federal Digital Replica Law", "claim": "Part 1's release recommended a federal digital replica law", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 1: digital replicas", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F9": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Past Events", "quote": "April 19, 2023 – Literary Works, Including Software Listening Session (recording available) … Fall 2021 – Copyright Law and Machine Learning for AI: Where Are We and Where Are We Going? … Winter 2020 – Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence", "claim": "the page lists listening sessions by kind of work (among them literary works including software, 19 April 2023) and earlier events of Fall 2021 and Winter 2020", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F10": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Copyright Registration Guidance block", "quote": "Copyright Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-Generated Materials … Read Policy Statement … Federal Register Version, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (Mar. 16, 2023)", "claim": "the registration guidance, a policy statement, in the Federal Register at 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (16 March 2023)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration guidance", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F11": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Artificial Intelligence Study block", "quote": "NOI Federal Register Version, 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023)", "claim": "the notice of inquiry in the Federal Register at 88 Fed. Reg. 59,942, dated 30 August 2023", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F12": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Registration Decisions for AI-Generated Materials", "quote": "Review Board decision on SURYAST (December 11, 2023) Review Board Decision on Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (Sept. 5, 2023) Registration Decision on Zarya of the Dawn (Feb. 21, 2023) Review Board Decision on A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Feb. 14, 2022)", "claim": "four decisions listed by work title and date", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration decisions", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F13": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Thaler v. Perlmutter block", "quote": "District Court Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration … Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration … Court of Appeals Order Denying Panel Rehearing En Banc U.S. Brief in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari", "claim": "Thaler v. Perlmutter: decisions affirming the refusal of registration, the order denying rehearing en banc, and the government's brief opposing certiorari", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F14": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Allen v. Perlmutter block", "quote": "Allen v. Perlmutter … U.S. Reply Brief and Response in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment", "claim": "Allen v. Perlmutter: the government's reply brief and cross-motion", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Allen v. Perlmutter", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F15": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Statements to Congress", "quote": "USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (December 16, 2024) USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (October 30, 2024) USCO Letter to Congress Providing Updates on its Artificial Intelligence Initiative (February 23, 2024)", "claim": "letters updating Congress, 23 February to 16 December 2024", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "statements to Congress and related resources", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F16": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Related Resources", "quote": "Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition USCO Comment to NTIA on AI Accountability USCO Guidance Letter to The MLC USPTO on Artificial Intelligence WIPO on Artificial Intelligence Impact of Artificial Intelligence on IP Policy", "claim": "related resources: the Compendium, comments and letters, the USPTO's and WIPO's AI pages", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "statements to Congress and related resources", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F17": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "footer", "quote": "101 Independence Ave. S.E. … Library of Congress", "claim": "the Office's address in the footer, which links the Library of Congress", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator", "date": "the initiative's page (launched 2023-03-16; latest announcement 2025-01-29); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 74edcbca86d30db9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F18": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "page <title> and issue line", "quote": "NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office … Issue No. 1060 - January 29, 2025", "claim": "NewsNet Issue 1060, dated 29 January 2025", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 2: copyrightability", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F19": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 2 snippet", "quote": "Report: U.S. Copyright Office Part 2 AI Report (January 29, 2025). Copyrightability: Generative AI outputs require sufficient human-authored expressive elements...", "claim": "card 2: Part 2 (29 January 2025); outputs require sufficient human-authored expressive elements", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 2: copyrightability", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 2's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F20": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶1 s4–5", "quote": "It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.", "claim": "Part 2's conclusion: protection only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements; prompts alone excluded", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F21": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶1 s6–7", "quote": "The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.", "claim": "AI assistance and inclusion of AI material do not bar copyrightability; no case for changing the law to protect AI outputs", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F22": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶1 s3", "quote": "The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past.", "claim": "existing principles of copyright law apply to the technology", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F23": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶2 (the Register's statement)", "quote": "“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. … Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”", "claim": "the Register: the conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity; protecting machine-determined expression would undermine copyright's constitutional goals", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the Office's rationale", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F24": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶4", "quote": "The Report is being released in three Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and recommended federal legislation to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The final, forthcoming Part 3 will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.", "claim": "three Parts; Part 1 recommended federal legislation on digital replicas; Part 3, forthcoming as of 29 January 2025, on training", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the Report", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F25": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "release ¶5", "quote": "As announced last year, the Office also plans to supplement its March 2023 registration guidance (PDF, 188 KB) and update the relevant sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices .", "claim": "a plan to supplement the 2023 guidance and update the Compendium", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration guidance", "date": "NewsNet Issue 1060, 2025-01-29; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 3dd16e8a45a9e709…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F26": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 3 snippet", "quote": "Initiative: U.S. Copyright Office AI study analyzing copyright law, unresolved issues, and congressional action. Process: Notice of inquiry published August 20,", "claim": "card 3: the study; the notice of inquiry 'published August 20,'", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the study page (its notice 2023-08); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 3's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F27": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶1", "quote": "The U.S. Copyright Office is conducting a study regarding the copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI). This study will collect information and policy views relevant to copyright law and policy. The Office will use this information to analyze the current state of the law, identify unresolved issues, and evaluate potential areas for congressional action.", "claim": "the study page's own statement of the initiative's purpose", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is", "date": "the study page (its notice 2023-08); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 a290fa0cdf149fd5…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F28": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶2 s1; the Report list", "quote": "The Office published a notice of inquiry on August 20, 2023, with a deadline for initial written comments on October 30, 2023, and reply comments on December 6, 2023. … August 30, 2023 – Notice of Inquiry", "claim": "the study page dates the notice 20 August 2023 in its prose and 30 August 2023 in its own list", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the study page (its notice 2023-08); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 a290fa0cdf149fd5…), whitespace-normalised", "marks": [ "internally_inconsistent: B3 ¶2 s1 'August 20, 2023' against B3's list 'August 30, 2023 – Notice of Inquiry'; B1 (F7, F11) gives 30 August" ] }, "F29": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶2 s2–3", "quote": "The Office received over 10,000 comments by the December 2023 deadline. Initial and reply comments have been posted and are available through regulations.gov .", "claim": "over 10,000 comments; comments available through regulations.gov", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "the study page (its notice 2023-08); read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 a290fa0cdf149fd5…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F30": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 4 snippet", "quote": "Core Positions: Human authorship remains a strict requirement for copyrightability; entirely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable. Prompt Limitations: Enterin...", "claim": "card 4: human authorship a strict requirement; entirely AI-generated works uncopyrightable", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 4's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F31": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶1–2", "quote": "This is the second of three reports the USCO plans to release on the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. … These reports all emanate from a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on copyright and AI that the USCO issued in August 2023.", "claim": "Part 2 the second of three reports, all from the August 2023 notice", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F32": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "positions, bullet 1", "quote": "Human authorship is a bedrock of copyrightability, and thus works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable.", "claim": "Part 2's first position, in the firm's account", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F33": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "positions, bullet 2", "quote": "The mere selection of prompts, even if those prompts are detailed and are the product of some human effort, does not itself yield a copyrightable work, although this determination could change as technology evolves.", "claim": "prompts alone do not yield a copyrightable work, a determination that could change as technology evolves (the limit)", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F34": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "positions, bullet 3", "quote": "Where a work includes both human and AI-generated content, only the human contributions are potentially copyrightable.", "claim": "in a mixed work only the human contributions are potentially copyrightable", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F35": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "positions, bullet 4", "quote": "The use of AI as a tool to enhance the human creative process ( e.g ., for ideation or to edit an image) does not render the entire work uncopyrightable.", "claim": "AI used as a tool does not render a work uncopyrightable", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F36": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶3", "quote": "In March 2023, the USCO issued guidance on works containing material generated by AI , confirming its position that human authorship is required to register a work, and that if a work contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated material, the applicant must disclose that information and provide a brief statement describing the human author’s contribution.", "claim": "the March 2023 guidance: human authorship required to register; more than de minimis AI material disclosed, with a statement of the human contribution", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F37": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶4 s2", "quote": "registrations for hundreds of works incorporating some form of AI-generated material have been granted since the 2023 guidance was issued.", "claim": "hundreds of registrations of works with AI-generated material since the 2023 guidance (as of February 2025)", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F38": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Use of 'Expressive Inputs' ¶1", "quote": "The position that the human-expressive elements of an output are protectible is consistent with the decision of the USCO Review Board to reject the copyright application in Sahni (December 2023) . In that matter, the applicant had taken his own photograph and used an AI tool apply a filter of Van Gogh’s Starry Night.", "claim": "the firm names a December 2023 Review Board refusal by its applicant, Sahni", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration decisions", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F39": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "Modifying or Arranging ¶2", "quote": "However, the view held by the majority of the NOI commenters, and the one supported by the USCO, is that existing laws are adequate, and providing additional protection for AI-generated content could undermine human creativity and flood the market with low-quality works, ultimately harming the creative economy.", "claim": "a sui generis right rejected: existing laws adequate, more protection could undermine human creativity", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the Office's rationale", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F40": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "¶ on comparative analysis", "quote": "The Report also includes a comparative analysis of the copyrightability of AI-generated works in various other jurisdictions, and concludes that countries that have addressed this issue “so far have agreed that copyright requires human authorship.”", "claim": "Part 2's comparative analysis: countries so far agree on human authorship", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "other jurisdictions", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F41": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "closing ¶; disclaimer", "quote": "The Report does not modify the positions the USCO has taken to date regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works. … is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice.", "claim": "Part 2 does not modify the Office's positions; the firm's memorandum is not legal advice (its limit)", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Skadden, 2025-02-04; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 bd27ac4183422a92…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F42": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 5 snippet (page refused)", "quote": "Report: U.S. Copyright Office Third AI Report (May 9, 2025) addressing generative AI training on copyrighted works. Fair Use Analysis: Evaluates four statutory ...", "claim": "card 5: Part 3 (9 May 2025) on training; a fair use analysis of the statutory factors", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 3: training and fair use", "date": "card snippet only (the Report of 2025-05-09); undated card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 5's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F43": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 6 snippet", "quote": "US Copyright Office: Requires human authorship for copyright; purely AI-generated works are uncopyrightable; AI-assisted modifications or selections may qualify...", "claim": "card 6: human authorship required; purely AI-generated works uncopyrightable; AI-assisted modifications or selections may qualify", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 6's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F44": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "byline and standfirst", "quote": "By Miriam Lord , Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Public Information and Education, US Copyright Office … The US Copyright Office in 2023 launched its initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI.", "claim": "the article is by the Office's own staff, on the initiative launched in 2023", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F45": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "standfirst", "quote": "You can’t copyright fully AI-generated work but you may be able to protect your sufficiently original selection and arrangement or modification of AI-output.", "claim": "the Office's staff: fully AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted; original selection, arrangement or modification may be", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F46": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "interview, Weston ¶3", "quote": "When it comes to copyrightability issues, including works containing AI-generated material, the Office is a kind of “natural laboratory” because our examiners deal with these issues daily.", "claim": "the Office describes itself as a 'natural laboratory' for copyrightability", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F47": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "interview, Mangum on Randy Travis", "quote": "The Office has registered more than a thousand works where applicants have followed our guidance to disclose and disclaim AI-generated material.", "claim": "more than a thousand works registered under the guidance to disclose and disclaim (as of 24 April 2025)", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F48": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "pull quote", "quote": "The difference is whether AI is enhancing human expression or is the source of the expressive choices.", "claim": "the test: AI enhancing human expression against AI as the source of the expressive choices", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F49": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "interview, Mangum on digital replicas", "quote": "We concluded there was an urgent need for a new federal right protecting all people – not just celebrities – from the unauthorized use of their likeness and voice.", "claim": "Part 1's conclusion: a new federal right against unauthorized use of likeness and voice", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 1: digital replicas", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F50": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "interview, Weston on other countries", "quote": "In China, a court recently recognized copyright in a picture created using AI, finding a human author exercised sufficient creativity in prompting the AI tool and then revising the output. And South Korea has registered an AI-created film as a compilation, based on the human creativity that went into the selection, coordination and arrangement of its AI-generated components.", "claim": "China and South Korea on AI-created works", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "other jurisdictions", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F51": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "about the Office", "quote": "The US Copyright Office is charged by statute with the administration of US Copyright law.", "claim": "the Office's statutory charge", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator", "date": "WIPO Magazine, 2025-04-24; read 2026-11-01", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 12fb58d41dfcf0f9…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F52": { "source": "B7", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "locus": "card 7 snippet (page refused)", "quote": "Copyright Authorship: U.S. law requires human authorship for copyright protection; *Thaler v. Perlmutter* confirmed AI-generated works lacking human creative co...", "claim": "card 7: human authorship required; Thaler v. Perlmutter confirmed it", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "card snippet only; undated card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card rail of the registry's transcript string (T1): card 7's snippet, whitespace-normalised" }, "F53": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "Wikipedia: title lookups (raw wikitext)", "quote": "#REDIRECT [[Artificial intelligence and copyright]]", "claim": "no article on the initiative: 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' HTTP 404; 'Copyright and artificial intelligence' redirects to the general article; 'United States Copyright Office' has no mention of artificial intelligence", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8-redirect.wiki (sha256 6a340850662d0714…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F54": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "Copyright status of AI-generated works, image caption", "quote": "The United States Copyright Office has declared that works not created by a human author, like this \"selfie\" portrait taken by a monkey , are not eligible for copyright protection.", "claim": "the Office has declared works not created by a human author ineligible", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F55": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶2", "quote": "Other proponents argue that the Copyright Office is not taking a technology neutral approach to the use of AI or algorithmic tools. … For works using AI tools, the Copyright Office has made the test a different one i.e. whether there is no more than de minimis technological involvement.", "claim": "a contested reading: the Office's test for AI tools is not technology neutral", "modality": "contested", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the human-authorship requirement", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F56": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶3, blockquote (Théâtre D'opéra Spatial)", "quote": "This difference in approach can be seen in the recent decision in respect of a registration claim by Jason Matthew Allen for his work Théâtre D'opéra Spatial created using Midjourney and an upscaling tool. … The Board finds that the Work contains more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence (\"AI\"), and this content must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration. Because Mr. Allen is unwilling to disclaim the AI-generated material, the Work cannot be registered as submitted.", "claim": "the Théâtre D'opéra Spatial decision, Jason Matthew Allen's claim: more than de minimis AI content must be disclaimed; refused for want of the disclaimer", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F57": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶6", "quote": "The Copyright Office further clarified in January 2025 that AI-assisted works where the creative expression of the human remains evident in the work can be copyrighted … Works \"where the expressive elements are determined by a machine\" still remain uncopyrightable. … Following this guidance, the Copyright Office registered \"A Single Piece of American Cheese\", the first visual artwork composed solely of AI generated outputs as a composite work in January 2025. … The basis for the copyright involved arguing that human-driven selection, arrangement, and coordination involved in the creative process on a single work constituted sufficient human authorship to merit the copyright.", "claim": "January 2025 clarification; A Single Piece of American Cheese registered as a composite work of AI outputs on human selection and arrangement", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration and disclosure", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F58": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶7", "quote": "Both the federal and circuit courts in the District of Columbia have upheld the Copyright Office's refusal to register copyrights for works generated solely by machines … the Supreme Court of the United States has denied hearing challenges to the Copyright Office's decision.", "claim": "the D.C. courts upheld the refusal; the Supreme Court denied review (as of March 2026)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F59": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶8", "quote": "following an August 2023 ruling in the case Thaler v. Perlmutter . In this case, the Patent Office denied grant to patents created by Stephen Thaler's AI program, DABUS due to the lack of a \"natural person\" on the patents' list of inventors.", "claim": "Wikipedia places Thaler v. Perlmutter in patent law (DABUS)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised", "marks": [ "contradicts_primary: B1 holds Thaler v. Perlmutter as a case over the 'Refusal of Registration' (F13), the Copyright Office's; the DABUS patent refusals are a distinct matter" ] }, "F60": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United Kingdom ¶3", "quote": "In October, 2023, The U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry and request for comments following its 2023 Registration Guidance.", "claim": "Wikipedia dates the notice of inquiry October 2023", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised", "marks": [ "contradicts_primary: B1 'August 30, 2023 - Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry' and '88 Fed. Reg. 59,942 (Aug. 30, 2023)' (F7, F11)" ] }, "F61": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "Training AI with copyrighted data, United States ¶4", "quote": "The U.S. Copyright Office released a report that included review of public comment on matters of AI. Among other topics, the report addressed concerns about fair use of training materials, and considered that two of the fair use factors could be of concern.", "claim": "Part 3's fair use analysis, in Wikipedia's account: two factors of concern", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Part 3: training and fair use", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F62": { "source": "B8", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "locus": "United States ¶5", "quote": "The U.S. Copyright Office published a Rule in March 2023 on a range of issues related to the use of AI, where they stated:", "claim": "Wikipedia calls the March 2023 guidance a Rule", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "registration guidance", "date": "Wikipedia as read 2026-11-01 (the census copy)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B8.txt (sha256 310bf08afe678b7a…), whitespace-normalised", "marks": [ "contradicts_primary: B1 gives the guidance as a policy statement ('Read Policy Statement', F10)" ] } }, "field_sources": { "B1": "Copyright Office (.gov) — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office", "B2": "Copyright Office (.gov) — NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office", "B3": "Copyright Office (.gov) — Artificial Intelligence Study | U.S. Copyright Office", "B4": "Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP", "B5": "Crowell & Moring LLP — U.S. Copyright Office Releases Third Report on AI and Copyright Addressing Training AI Models with Copyrighted Materials | Crowell & Moring LLP", "B6": "WIPO — US Copyright Office on AI: Human creativity still matters, legally", "B7": "Congress.gov — Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law | Congress.gov | Library of Congress", "B8": "Wikipedia — no article on the initiative; \"Copyright and artificial intelligence\" redirects to Artificial intelligence and copyright" }, "field_by_origin": { "cards": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5", "B6", "B7" ], "own_pages": [ "B1 (carried in B_D as card 1)" ], "wikipedia": [ "B8" ], "census_third_party": [], "pools": { "B_D": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5", "B6", "B7" ], "B_R": [ "B8" ] }, "unreachable": [ "B5", "B7" ], "title_only": [], "snippet_only": [ "B5", "B7" ], "wikipedia_state": "no article on the initiative: 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' raw wikitext HTTP 404; 'Copyright and artificial intelligence' a redirect (R from modification) to Artificial intelligence and copyright, the census's Wikipedia source, in which the Office appears in 'Copyright status of AI-generated works' > 'United States' and 'Training AI with copyrighted data' > 'United States'; the article United States Copyright Office has no mention of artificial intelligence", "counts": { "B_D": 7, "B_R": 1, "fetched": 6, "unreachable": 2 } }, "delta": { "T_vs_LB": "At \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (T1, seven cards: B1 the initiative's page, B2 NewsNet 1060, B3 the Artificial Intelligence Study page, B4 Skadden, B5 Crowell & Moring and B7 Congress.gov, both refused with HTTP 403, B6 WIPO Magazine by the Office's own staff; 264 words) the composition gives the initiative from its cards at the Report's grain. Composed from B_D: the launch in early 2023 and the over 10,000 comments (card 1 F2, B1 F3, F4); the three Parts at their dates (B1 F5, F6; card 2 F19; card 5 F42; CAP-1-01); Part 1's recommendation of federal protection and voice and likeness (B1 F8, B2 F24, B6 F49); Part 2's rule, purely AI-generated works uncopyrightable and protection requiring human selection, arrangement or modification (B2 F20, B4 F32, F34, B6 F43, F45); 'strictly requires human authorship' at the grain of card 4's snippet, 'Human authorship remains a strict requirement for copyrightability' (F30); Thaler v. Perlmutter at the grain of card 7's snippet (F52), beside the page's 'Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration' (F13); the registration rule nearly verbatim from Skadden, 'must disclose that information and provide a brief statement describing the human author’s contribution' (B4 F36). The notice's date: T composes 'August 20, 2023', which is the study page's own prose (B3 F28) and its card's snippet (F26); the same page's list, the initiative's page and the Federal Register version give 30 August (F28, F7, F11), and those are available and not composed. T carries one side of a source's internal inconsistency without the other; the registry records the date as misdated after a card's snippet (CAP-1-02). §6.2 'available, not composed' (B_D): Allen v. Perlmutter (F14); three of the four decisions, Zarya of the Dawn offered only in the closer (F12); the guidance's and the notice's Federal Register citations (F10, F11; CAP-1-09); the government's brief opposing certiorari (F13); the letters to Congress (F15); the Register's statement (F23); 'existing principles … flexible enough' and 'the case has not been made' for new protection (F21, F22); the rejected separate right (F39); the registration counts, hundreds and more than a thousand (F37, F47); the word 'disclaim' of the Office's own staff, 'disclose and disclaim' (F47), T composing disclosure and a statement of the human contribution; the comparative conclusion and the Chinese and South Korean decisions (F40, F50), offered in the closer as 'International differences'. Limit dropped: Part 3's 'A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future' (F6), T keeping the label 'Pre-publication'; prompts insufficient 'although this determination could change as technology evolves' (F33), composed as 'Mere prompting is insufficient to claim authorship over an AI output.' Outside the field as read: Part 3 'suggests that commercial training on vast troves of copyrighted material to produce competing expressive content often exceeds fair use boundaries, though it emphasizes case-by-case balancing and market-based solutions', cited to a card whose page refused the census's agent (B5); the snippet reads only 'Evaluates four statutory ...' (F42), so the claim's source cannot be read from B_D. No source of B_D is composed without attribution at its own resolution; no claim is assigned to another. Content replaced by use (N_ext): the closer, 'If you'd like, I can provide more details on', offering decisions, training cases and international differences. On the census's question T says nothing of names, pseudonyms or heteronyms (CAP-1-04); B_D has nothing on it either (LS-14), so the silence is the field's.", "LB_vs_LBA": "L_F(B) against L(B ∪ A), equal case (ρ = extends): the field composed whole in both; the archive's claims enter on the same object. B_R adds (Wikipedia, B8, not surfaced by T): the Supreme Court's denial of review and the D.C. courts' upholding (F58); Allen's refusal for want of a disclaimer, in the Board's words (F56); the January 2025 clarification and the composite registration of 'A Single Piece of American Cheese' (F57); the contested de minimis test (F55); and three contradictions of the primary pages, the notice in 'October, 2023' (F60), the guidance as 'a Rule' (F62) and Thaler v. Perlmutter placed in patent law (F59), each held beside the page under P_coh. A source of B_R alone shows nothing of what the composition had (§3.1(a)). Not surfaced (§6.2): every archive source. The archive adds, on the field's own object: the census's question and its answer for the initiative (LS-09, LS-13, LS-14, LS-16), its finding that the page has no rule on pseudonymous, heteronymous, collective or absent names (LS-14, LS-23), and its reading of the Office as the legal register of the civil-name regime with machine participation attributed by subtraction (LS-24); #940's civil-name attribution, copyright attaching to legal names and legal accountability kept apart from exhaustive authorial identity (O940-01 to O940-04); #195's readings of the rule, Thaler settled only for what it litigated (O195-01 to O195-04), the control test and the abandoned instrument classification (O195-06, O195-07), the confession protocol and its forecast of concealment (O195-08, O195-09), the allocation (an individuation bar, a decoy commons, a catalog moat: O195-10 to O195-12; with #194's interlock, O194-01), the joint record registrable only as its human residue (O195-17), and its proposals, the Compositional Authorship Standard and attribution without disclaimer (O195-13, O195-14), with their stated limits (O195-15); #729's classing of Part 2 as the tool-neutral position, with its limit (O729-01, O729-02); and the Capture Registry's findings at the address (CAP-1-01 to CAP-1-10). Held under P_coh, each with its source: the Register's 'centrality of human creativity' (F23) beside the catalog-moat reading (O195-12); the Office's 'more than a thousand works' registered under disclose-and-disclaim (F47) beside the forecast of concealment (O195-09); the Office's test (F48, F20) beside the archive's control-test reading and its proposed standard (O195-06, O195-07, O195-13); Part 2's comparative conclusion (F40) beside 'There is no global consensus' (O195-16). The measure (§4.10) is computed in measure: no KO_B sentence survives in the KO at ≥ 0.95, and the KO opens with a sentence that cites field and archive together." }, "kernel": [ { "K": "K1", "claim": "`LS-01`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K2", "claim": "`LS-02`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "names", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F1, F5, F24)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K3", "claim": "`LS-03`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "names", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F1, F5, F24)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K4", "claim": "`LS-04`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "names", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F3, F27)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K5", "claim": "`LS-05`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K6", "claim": "`LS-06`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K7", "claim": "`LS-07`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K8", "claim": "`LS-08`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K9", "claim": "`LS-09`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K10", "claim": "`LS-10`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K11", "claim": "`LS-11`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K12", "claim": "`LS-12`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F3, F27)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K13", "claim": "`LS-13`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "registration and disclosure", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K14", "claim": "`LS-14`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field states no rule on names; card titles and the page list decisions by work, F12, beside Skadden's naming by applicant, F38)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K15", "claim": "`LS-15`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F17, F44, F46, F51)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K16", "claim": "`LS-16`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F36, F47 (disclosure; disclose and disclaim) — the census reads the function as human authorship with the AI part disclaimed", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K17", "claim": "`LS-17`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K18", "claim": "`LS-18`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "genealogy: earlier events and sessions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F2, F4, F7, F9, F10, F11)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K19", "claim": "`LS-19`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F2, F4, F7, F9, F11, F26)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K20", "claim": "`LS-20`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the Report", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F5, F6, F24)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K21", "claim": "`LS-21`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "Part 3, pre-publication", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K22", "claim": "`LS-22`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K23", "claim": "`LS-23`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (no field claim on pseudonymous or heteronymous registration)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K24", "claim": "`LS-24`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the archive's reading", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no reading of the rule as subtraction or of civil-name attribution)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K25", "claim": "`LS-25`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F15, F16)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K26", "claim": "`LS-26`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F15, F16)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K27", "claim": "`LS-27`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "Part 3, pre-publication", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F6)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K28", "claim": "`LS-28`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F2, F4, F7, F9, F10, F11)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K29", "claim": "`LS-29`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "launch and the notice of inquiry", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field: one lineage with F2, F4, F7, F9, F10, F11)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K30", "claim": "`LS-30`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the record it keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K31", "claim": "`LS-31`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: neighbours", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K32", "claim": "`LS-32`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "the record: what it leaves unchecked", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K33", "claim": "`LS-33`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K34", "claim": "`LS-34`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K35", "claim": "`LS-35`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the census's question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K36", "claim": "`CAP-1-01`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K37", "claim": "`CAP-1-02`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the notice's date", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F28 (the study page's own prose gives 20 August; its list gives 30 August)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K38", "claim": "`CAP-1-03`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K39", "claim": "`CAP-1-04`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name: the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F47 ('disclose and disclaim'), absent from T's rule, which composes disclosure and a statement of the human contribution", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K40", "claim": "`CAP-1-05`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K41", "claim": "`CAP-1-06`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K42", "claim": "`CAP-1-07`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K43", "claim": "`CAP-1-08`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K44", "claim": "`CAP-1-09`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K45", "claim": "`CAP-1-10`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-11-01", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (a statement on T, the composition at the address; the field has no claim on it)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K46", "claim": "`O195-01`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (concurs with F58, the denial of review)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K47", "claim": "`O195-02`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the unresolved zone", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F58, F52 (the courts' holding for works generated solely by machines) — the archive limits its reach to the litigated claim", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K48", "claim": "`O195-03`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F13, F58)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K49", "claim": "`O195-04`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the unresolved zone", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F52, F58", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K50", "claim": "`O195-05`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "registration and disclosure", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F36, F56, F12)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K51", "claim": "`O195-06`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the test of control", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F48, F20 (the Office's test)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K52", "claim": "`O195-07`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the test of control", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F22 ('existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology')", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K53", "claim": "`O195-08`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F47 (registration under disclose-and-disclaim reported as working)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3); the Office's registration records of works disclosing AI-generated material, by year" }, { "K": "K54", "claim": "`O195-09`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "hypothesis", "sense": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated with a threshold; watch: whether disclosures of AI-generated material on registration applications fall as the disclaimer rule stands, and a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F47, F37 (registrations counted in the hundreds, then more than a thousand)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3); the Office's registration records of works disclosing AI-generated material, by year" }, { "K": "K55", "claim": "`O195-10`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the machine side)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K56", "claim": "`O195-11`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field states no reading of the public domain of AI output)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K57", "claim": "`O195-12`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F23 (the Register: the conclusions 'turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright'), F39", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K58", "claim": "`O195-13`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the test of control: the proposed standard", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F20, F33 (prompts and machine-determined expression excluded)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K59", "claim": "`O195-14`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "registration and disclosure: the confession protocol", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F36, F56 (disclosure with disclaimer)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K60", "claim": "`O195-15`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "the test of control: the proposed standard", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the proposal's own limits)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K61", "claim": "`O195-16`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "other jurisdictions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F40 ('so far have agreed that copyright requires human authorship')", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K62", "claim": "`O195-17`", "source": "#195 The Double Enclosure: The Human-Authorship Requirement as Tw, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the archive's reading", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on joint composition as such)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K63", "claim": "`O729-01`", "source": "#729 Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure, 2026-05-12", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F21, F35)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K64", "claim": "`O729-02`", "source": "#729 Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure, 2026-05-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the human-authorship requirement", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K65", "claim": "`O194-01`", "source": "#194 Adversarial by Origin How the Classification of External Inf, 2026-06-12", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the requirement allocates", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K66", "claim": "`O940-01`", "source": "#940 EA-HETERONYMY-01 v0.2: Heteronymy as Ethical Operation Again, 2026-07-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field states nothing on names)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K67", "claim": "`O940-02`", "source": "#940 EA-HETERONYMY-01 v0.2: Heteronymy as Ethical Operation Again, 2026-07-01", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K68", "claim": "`O940-03`", "source": "#940 EA-HETERONYMY-01 v0.2: Heteronymy as Ethical Operation Again, 2026-07-01", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K69", "claim": "`O940-04`", "source": "#940 EA-HETERONYMY-01 v0.2: Heteronymy as Ethical Operation Again, 2026-07-01", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the name: civil-name attribution", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction", "resolver": "a later capture at \"U.S. Copyright Office Copyright and Artificial Intelligence\" (ADDR-4825e3919030) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" } ], "kernel_T": [ { "claim": "F6", "note": "Part 3's final-version note, 'A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future', absent; the label 'Pre-publication' composed" }, { "claim": "F33", "note": "the limit on prompts, 'although this determination could change as technology evolves', absent; 'Mere prompting is insufficient' composed" }, { "claim": "F7", "note": "the page's own date for the notice, 30 August 2023, absent; T composes the study page's 20 August (F28, F26; CAP-1-02)" }, { "claim": "F11", "note": "the notice's Federal Register citation and date, absent (CAP-1-09: no Federal Register citation)" }, { "claim": "F10", "note": "the guidance's Federal Register citation and its form as a policy statement, absent" }, { "claim": "F14", "note": "Allen v. Perlmutter, absent (CAP-1-03)" }, { "claim": "F12", "note": "three of the four decisions absent; Zarya of the Dawn offered in the closer" }, { "claim": "F13", "note": "the brief opposing certiorari, absent; Thaler composed as an affirming ruling" }, { "claim": "F47", "note": "'disclose and disclaim' and the count of registrations, absent; disclosure composed" }, { "claim": "F37", "note": "'hundreds of works' registered, absent" }, { "claim": "F23", "note": "the Register's statement of the rationale, absent" }, { "claim": "F21", "note": "AI assistance does not bar copyrightability; no case made for new protection; absent" }, { "claim": "F39", "note": "the rejected separate right for AI-generated works, absent" }, { "claim": "F40", "note": "the comparative conclusion, absent; 'International differences' offered in the closer" }, { "claim": "F50", "note": "the Chinese and South Korean decisions, absent" }, { "claim": "F15", "note": "the letters to Congress, absent" } ], "measure": { "rule": "v0.10 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (computed as apply_v09.py does: difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence)", "v0.10": { "surviving": 0, "of": 17, "positions": [ null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null ] }, "opening_run": { "rule": "v0.10 §5.10 (equal-terms case): the field-only KO's sentences as the KO's opening run in their own order", "breach": false }, "blocks": { "rule": "v0.10 §4.1 (equal-terms case): the KO does not open with the field as a block or close with the archive as one; sentences typed by the ledgers of the claims they cite (F field-only, A archive-only, M both)", "sequence": "MMFMMMFFMMFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAFFFFAAAMMAFFAMMAMAMAAAAAAAFAAMA", "field_only_head": 0, "archive_only_tail": 1, "breach": false }, "max_similarity": [ 0.6, 0.563, 0.474, 0.361, 0.227, 0.206, 0.373, 0.297, 0.334, 0.297, 0.288, 0.258, 0.359, 0.266, 0.33, 0.249, 0.274 ], "ko_sentence_1_max_similarity_to_KO_B": 0.6 }, "homonyms": { "names": [], "basis": "No card is a homonym: every card concerns the initiative or its Report. 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' names both the initiative's page and its Report (F1, F5), one entity and its principal document. Wikipedia's 'Copyright and artificial intelligence' redirects to the general article Artificial intelligence and copyright, a topic and a distinct entity. Wikipedia's 'Thaler v. Perlmutter' in its patent paragraph (F59) conflates the copyright case with Stephen Thaler's DABUS patent refusals, distinct matters.", "distinct_entities": [ "Artificial intelligence and copyright (Wikipedia's general article; the redirect target)", "the DABUS patent refusals (Stephen Thaler's patent applications), distinct from Thaler v. Perlmutter, the copyright registration case (F13, F59)", "WIPO's pages on artificial intelligence (a related resource, F16; the census neighbour wipo-frontier)", "the Congressional Research Service's Legal Sidebar LSB10922, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law' (card 7), a report on the subject", "the U.S. Copyright Office itself, the operator, whose registration function predates the initiative" ] }, "notes": [ "One address, Google AI Overview (expanded), signed out, incognito, 2026-11-01: u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101 (OBS-84d5b496561b, ADDR-4825e3919030, AXN:0B8A.CAPTURE.📋🏛️☀️🕔🗂️🚀), seven cards, 264 words in the answer body with its headings and closer. A NEW address (CAP-1-08).", "Pools (v0.10 §3.1(a)): B_D seven cards (B1–B7), B1 also the census's own page, carried once in B_D; B_R one source, Wikipedia (B8). census_third_party is empty: the census read only the home page and Wikipedia.", "Fetching: cards fetched with curl and the agent 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)'; B1 byte-identical to the census copy; B5 (Crowell & Moring) and B7 (Congress.gov) refused with HTTP 403 and a bot check, recorded as unreachable after one request each, not retried; their snippets stand as their only text. Card URLs were found by title and site (WebSearch).", "Wikipedia: no article on the initiative. 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' 404; 'Copyright and artificial intelligence' redirects to Artificial intelligence and copyright (the census's Wikipedia source); the United States Copyright Office article does not mention AI.", "Archive selection (§3.4): string pass D 28 sentences in 8 deposits, R 0, O 35 in 19; read and admitted #195 (D, O), #729 (D; #1369 a later instance of the same packet, grouped in its lineage), #940 (anchor, O); hop of 29 from #195 and #729, #194 admitted (O; #1209 a version of it, grouped); #1722 read as the census's anchor and not admitted (no passage on registration, copyright or certification of human authorship); the rest read and not admitted (reading.json).", "The census row's ls_reading names #940 only; #195 (The Double Enclosure, 2026-06-12) is the archive's deposit on the human-authorship requirement and the registration practice and is the defining paper for the archive's reading of the rule. The census record does not cite it.", "The Secret Book of Walt's 2015 registration with the Office (#1692) is a relation of an archive work to the operator's registration function, before the initiative; read and not admitted (no claim on the initiative or its rule).", "Composer: Claude (Opus 5.5), a subagent, under BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AUTHORSHIP (v0.10). The kernel is composer-written (§8.2 derivation pending)." ], "composition_v09": { "source": "this row (composed directly; no rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/copyright-office-ai.json)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-11-01", "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726)", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "leesharks.com authorship census record, row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/census.json (rows[slug == 'copyright-office-ai'], organizing_question, anchor, areas, schema_note, admission_rule, unread_sources)", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "census sources", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/sources/copyright-office-ai--home.*, --wikipedia.*; sources/manifest.json", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "capture record", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json (u-s-copyright-office-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-aio-20261101)", "read": "transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, d, reading, findings, analysis, q_kind, mt, per, per_note, per_dim" }, { "dep": 195, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033B-text.md", "read": "whole" }, { "dep": 729, "file": "data/texts/AXN-027C-text.md", "read": "§3 (the four positions) and its citations; #1369 (AXN-056A) at the same passage" }, { "dep": 194, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033A-text.md", "read": "§IV, the paragraph on the Double Enclosure, and the candidates on DMCA §1201" }, { "dep": 940, "file": "data/texts/AXN-03B8-text.md", "read": "§0–§5 (the compressed statement, the political-semantic condition, the operational criteria, the archive's instances, the ethical conditions and boundary)" }, { "dep": 1722, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B2A-text.md", "read": "the note on composition, Part One (the four questions) and the passages on heteronyms and machine participation (read and not admitted)" }, { "what": "the specification", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B79-text.md", "read": "§0–§11 whole; Appendix A by its opening" }, { "what": "the briefs", "file": "rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AUTHORSHIP.md; v09/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AGGREGATOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-LABOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-LEFT.md", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "exemplar rows", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/unionstats.json (with its ledgers, config and reading); cms-ai-copyright-tracker.json (reading and config)", "read": "structure, field by field" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "equal case; KO 56 sentences, all 62 field and 69 archive claims cited; P body 330 words; KO_B 17 sentences, 0 surviving at ≥ 0.95" } }