Letter: the US Copyright Office says a graphic novel's images that were generated using the AI tool Midjourney should not have been granted copyright protection
Images in a graphic novel that were created using the artificial-intelligence system Midjourney should not have been granted copyright protection …
ReutersBlake Brittain
Context & Ripple Effects
The Copyright Office had already revoked protection for an AI-art comic book after initially granting it, putting Midjourney-generated images at the center of an emerging authorship boundary. This letter makes that boundary more concrete for a graphic novel: the tool’s output, rather than the work’s format, is the issue.
The decision matters to Midjourney because copyright registration is a key route for creators seeking control over commercial uses of generated images. The Office, not Midjourney, is defining the legal limit on what users can claim.
First-order effects
The US Copyright Office removes copyright protection from the Midjourney-generated images in the graphic novel, limiting the rightsholder’s claim over those images.
Midjourney users seeking US copyright registrations must distinguish AI-generated image material from human-authored material in their submissions.
Second-order effects
Midjourney’s commercial users face a weaker exclusivity proposition for image-only output, increasing the value of demonstrable human creative contribution around generated material.
The Copyright Office’s reversal gives registrants and publishers a clearer reason to review registrations that rely on AI-generated artwork before asserting rights in them.
Third-order effects
If the Office applies the same human-authorship standard consistently, AI-image tools will be commercialized alongside documentation and workflow practices designed to identify human-authored elements rather than as sources of independently protected artwork.
The dispute marks a broader separation between using generative AI in a creative process and obtaining copyright in the resulting AI-generated output.
The trend: US copyright policy is drawing a human-authorship boundary around generative-AI creative work, reshaping how image-generation tools are used commercially.
AI-generated content may not be easily copyrighted and might not be protected by section 230 (we shall see what the Supreme Court decides in the Gonzalez vs. google case) The regulation of AI has already begun in the US. https://www.theverge.com/...
This will feel like a win for creators. It is a loss. The cost of competitive artwork has just fallen dramatically. The US Copyright Office says an AI can't copyright its art https://www.theverge.com/... via @Verge
One of the first decisions by a U.S. court on the scope of copyright protection for works created with AI (tl;dr: they cannot be copyrighted). https://www.reuters.com/...
For those RT'ing stuff about the Midjourney-assisted comic book copyright case: copyright was NOT granted for the Midjourney images. The copyright was only granted to... the bits the human did. Like any other comic book. https://www.reuters.com/...
Very interesting discussion from Kris Kashtanova's lawyers regarding the USCO decision involving their comic book Zarya of the Dawn. I think that this ain't over, could this case be headed to court? https://processmechanics.com/ ...
From the USPTO: “However, the images in the Work that were generated by the Midjourney technology are not the product of human authorship (And are not protected by copyright).” https://twitter.com/...
The decision from the U.S. Copyright Office to not grant copyright protection for AI generated images is one of the first by a U.S. court or agency for works created with AI, and comes amid the meteoric rise of generative AI software https://www.reuters.com/... https://twitter.co…