The Copyright Office has released a preliminary version of the third and final segment of its study on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. This latest installment, titled "Part 3: Generative AI Training (Pre-publication)," follows previous releases: "Part 1: Digital Replicas" on July 31, 2024, and "Part 2: Copyrightability" on January 29, 2025. The final version of Part 3 is anticipated to be published soon.
This comprehensive study originates from an executive order issued by the previous administration. The order tasked the Copyright Office and Patent & Trademark Office with developing recommendations regarding the use of copyrighted works in training AI algorithms, copyright protections for AI-generated works, and considerations for AI involvement in the invention process.
In response to this study, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) submitted comments to the Copyright Office. CCIA expressed that current U.S. copyright law is adequate for addressing existing issues related to AI and copyright. Additionally, CCIA released a whitepaper detailing fundamental aspects of AI technology and proposing best practices for future AI regulations.
For over five decades, CCIA has been advocating for technology policies that foster innovation.
CCIA President & CEO Matt Schruers commented on the report's findings: “While CCIA appreciates the Copyright Office’s acknowledgement that AI training can qualify as an example of fair use, we remain concerned about a number of conclusions reached in the Report. Fair use is intended to balance the rights of creators with the public interest, but the Report repeatedly puts a thumb on the scale against the public interest."
Schruers further noted concerns about market harm theories presented in the report: “As just one example, the Copyright Office endorses an expansive theory of market harm for fair use purposes that would allow rightsholders to block any use that might have a general effect on the market for copyrighted works, even if it doesn’t impact the rightsholder themself.”
He concluded by emphasizing judicial authority over such matters: “As the Report acknowledges, critical decisions on the status of copyright and AI training are made by courts, not by the Copyright Office.”