AIPLA Comments to USPTO on Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation
January 13, 2020
File Downloads
All documents are in PDF format.
AIPLA submitted these comments in response to the Department of Commerce’s Request regarding issues related to copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights impacted by artificial intelligence innovation.
1. Should a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the involvement of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting work, qualify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law?
AIPLA believes a work produced without the involvement of a natural person should not be copyrightable, and that use of an AI algorithm or process should not change the fundamental requirement that authorship is limited to a natural person(s) or, in the case of a work made for hire, the employer of a natural person(s).
2. Assuming involvement by a natural person is or should be required, what kind of involvement would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection?
No. A work produced without the involvement of a natural person should not be copyrightable. Under current U.S. copyright law, the hypothetical would result in an “authorless” work that is not protectable by copyright because no human being is involved in the resulting work. AIPLA believes that use of an AI algorithm or process should not change the fundamental requirement that authorship is limited to a natural person(s) or, in the case of a work made for hire, the employer of a natural person(s).
3. Assuming involvement by a natural person is or should be required, what kind of involvement would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection?
Contribution of protectable expression to the AI-created work should be required. Given the many different types of AI algorithms and processes and the many different applications thereof, evaluation of the existence and degree of protectable expression by a natural person to a work made using in whole or in part an AI algorithm will require case-by-case consideration.
4. To the extent an AI algorithm or process learns its function(s) by ingesting large volumes of copyrighted material, does the existing statutory language (e.g., the fair use doctrine) and related case law adequately address the legality of making such use?
Each AI input scenario would have to be analyzed contextually, it is possible that use of copyrighted material as training materials may constitute fair use depending on the nature of the materials used and how they are used. Fair use issues are not clearly addressed or resolved in the existing statutory framework. Additional guidance is needed whether unauthorized derivative works are being created by the AI, and, whether the use of copyrighted materials as training materials is “transformative.”
1. Should a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the involvement of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting work, qualify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law?
AIPLA believes a work produced without the involvement of a natural person should not be copyrightable, and that use of an AI algorithm or process should not change the fundamental requirement that authorship is limited to a natural person(s) or, in the case of a work made for hire, the employer of a natural person(s).
2. Assuming involvement by a natural person is or should be required, what kind of involvement would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection?
No. A work produced without the involvement of a natural person should not be copyrightable. Under current U.S. copyright law, the hypothetical would result in an “authorless” work that is not protectable by copyright because no human being is involved in the resulting work. AIPLA believes that use of an AI algorithm or process should not change the fundamental requirement that authorship is limited to a natural person(s) or, in the case of a work made for hire, the employer of a natural person(s).
3. Assuming involvement by a natural person is or should be required, what kind of involvement would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection?
Contribution of protectable expression to the AI-created work should be required. Given the many different types of AI algorithms and processes and the many different applications thereof, evaluation of the existence and degree of protectable expression by a natural person to a work made using in whole or in part an AI algorithm will require case-by-case consideration.
4. To the extent an AI algorithm or process learns its function(s) by ingesting large volumes of copyrighted material, does the existing statutory language (e.g., the fair use doctrine) and related case law adequately address the legality of making such use?
Each AI input scenario would have to be analyzed contextually, it is possible that use of copyrighted material as training materials may constitute fair use depending on the nature of the materials used and how they are used. Fair use issues are not clearly addressed or resolved in the existing statutory framework. Additional guidance is needed whether unauthorized derivative works are being created by the AI, and, whether the use of copyrighted materials as training materials is “transformative.”
Upcoming Events
-
2026 AIPLA Virtual Corporate Practice Institute
January 13 to 20, 2026 | Up to 360 Minutes of CLE
The Corporate Practice Institute is not a bootcamp. This program provides in-depth insight for in-house corporate counsel and agents to learn about wide ranging legal issues affecting their practice from experienced practitioners. It is designed for experienced in-house attorneys and new in-house attorneys learning to manage new corporate environments and challenges not taught in law schools or private practice. The Institute also helps private practice attorneys, especially associates, prepare for potential in-house career moves. The program also provides valuable networking opportunities to connect with each other and learn from each other's experiences. This online, CLE-program spans two half-days, from Noon – 5:00 pm Eastern and includes 3 one-hour education sessions and a networking session each day. -
2026 IP Transactions Bootcamp
February 12, 2026
This in-person-only bootcamp is designed to provide practical insights and strategies for professionals working in intellectual property transactions. The day features a comprehensive agenda including: Panels and CLE Sessions: Learn about Working with Tech Transfer Offices, Strategies for successful collaborations between nonprofits and industry, and Protecting and monetizing an AI asset. Drafting and Negotiating Tips: Get practical advice on drafting and negotiating strategic collaboration and license agreements. Hands-on Workshop: Participate in a Mock licensing negotiation to put your skills to the test. Networking: Conclude the day with a dedicated Networking reception. Registration Coming Soon! -
2026 Trade Secret Summit
March 26 to 27, 2026
The AIPLA Trade Secret Summit is the leading trade secret conference in the nation, with speakers from across the spectrum of private practitioners, in-house counsel, government, and academia, as well as fantastic networking opportunities. CLE credits will be available. -
2026 Spring Meeting - San Francisco, CA
May 13 to 15, 2026
We’re excited to welcome you to the 2026 AIPLA Spring Meeting, where innovation, technology, and intellectual property come together to shape the future. San Francisco is ready for your ideas, energy, and passion for IP! -
AIPLA 2026 Annual Meeting
October 29 to 31, 2026
Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2026 Annual meeting will take place at the Westin Washington, DC, Downtown. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 28. Programming scheduled October 29 - 31.