According to @godofprompt citing @LuizaJarovsky on X, the U.S. position is that AI-generated art without sufficient human authorship cannot be copyrighted, as reported by prior U.S. Copyright Office guidance and court rulings. According to the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2023 policy statement and the 2023 Thaler v. Perlmutter decision, works created solely by generative models are ineligible for protection, but human-authored elements such as selection, arrangement, and meaningful edits can qualify. For creative businesses, this means AI-only outputs are free for others to reuse, pressuring agencies to document human contributions, build rights-clear pipelines, and prioritize IP-safe workflows. According to the Copyright Office’s registration practices, applicants must disclose AI involvement and limit claims to human-authored portions, creating new compliance steps for studios, marketing teams, and design platforms. As reported by legal analyses of the Office’s guidance, monetization strategies are shifting toward proprietary datasets, human-in-the-loop curation, and trademark or contract protections to defend commercially valuable AI-assisted content.

According to The Rundown AI, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a key AI copyright dispute, leaving lower-court rulings in place and extending legal uncertainty for generative models and training data practices. As reported by The Rundown AI, this means companies must rely on existing fair use precedents and circuit-level decisions when assessing dataset provenance, opt-out mechanisms, and model outputs. According to The Rundown AI, immediate business actions include tightening data licensing workflows, implementing content provenance and watermarking, updating indemnity terms with providers, and monitoring state and federal policy moves that could reshape model training norms.