A new report from the U.S. Copyright Office reaffirms that AI-generated songs are not eligible for copyright protection unless they include sufficient human authorship. Issued on Jan. 29, the report clarifies that merely prompting AI to generate a song does not meet the legal threshold for authorship, but using AI as a creative aid—such as a brainstorming tool or in a recording studio—may still result in a protectable work.

Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter emphasized that copyright law protects human creativity, stating: “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” The report likens AI prompts to giving general instructions to a musician, arguing that such inputs do not constitute authorship.

However, the Copyright Office distinguished between AI-generated works and those created with AI assistance, noting that when AI serves as an assistive tool rather than replacing human creativity, the resulting work could qualify for protection. Examples include Hollywood studios using AI for visual effects and musicians employing AI to refine their compositions.

The report offers broad guidance but avoids rigid rules, stating that copyrightability will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This study is the second of three AI-related reports by the agency. The final report will address the legality of AI training on copyrighted works—an issue central to ongoing litigation and regulatory discussions.