USCO Issues Report on Copyright and Generative AI Training; Unconfirmed Reports Indicate Firings at USCO
It has been a tumultuous two weeks
On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office (“USCO”) released a pre-publication version of Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training (“Part 3” of the “Report”). It is important to note that this report is the pre-publication version. This version of Part 3 may or may not be the final statement. The reader should keep this in mind, particularly as the USCO included this description of Part 3:
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 near future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions. (Emphasis added by author).
The key word here is “expected”. Whenever a statement includes the word “expected”, analytically one has to leave the door open to the unexpected.
I would encourage readers of this space to be familiar with Part III, however, the U.S. Government could issue a completely different policy position with little notice.
It should be noted that news organizations are reporting that Shira Perlmutter has been terminated as Register of Copyrights and Director of the USCO by the President. CBS News here. Fox News reports here. Please note that no sources are on the record in either report, and Director Perlmutter’s biography page on the Copyright Office website is still live. This is a fluid situation. Never assume anything.
Part III Summary
The overarching policy concept of Part 3 is that government policy should balance the interests of the creative sector and the technology industry by refraining from intervention (i.e. Congress should stay out of this for now) and thus allowing market-based licensing arrangements to develop.
From the Part 3’s conclusion:
For those uses that may not qualify as fair, practical solutions are critical to support ongoing innovation. Licensing agreements for AI training, both individual and collective, are fast emerging in certain sectors, although their availability so far is inconsistent. Given the robust growth of voluntary licensing, as well as the lack of stakeholder support for any statutory change, the Office believes government intervention would be premature at this time. Rather, licensing markets should continue to develop, extending early successes into more contexts as soon as possible. In those areas where remaining gaps are unlikely to be filled, alternative approaches such as extended collective licensing should be considered to address any market failure.
In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights. These groundbreaking technologies should benefit both the innovators who design them and the creators whose content fuels them, as well as the general public.
Finally, as in prior Parts of this Report, the Office recognizes that facts on the grounds are evolving at a rapid pace. We will continue to monitor developments in technology, case law, and markets, and to offer further assistance to Congress as it considers these issues.
Report, at 107 (emphasis added by author).
You can read the pre-publication version of Part 3 here:
More to follow on this as it develops.
J. Bryan Tuk is a US based attorney and the founder of Tuk Business & Entertainment Law, and a member of the American Society of Composers and Producers (ASCAP).