/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

The US Copyright Office denies protection for an AI-made image that won an art competition, despite Adobe Photoshop alterations and 624+ text prompt revisions

thus nothing could be granted to him. [image] @glynntarrant : It's good to see Jason is still struggling with trying to copyright this AI generated image. Also, since he was and still is unwilling to disclaim the AI generated image, he's going to be stuck in this legal loop for a while. @franklingraves : The @CopyrightOffice has issued a denial for a Second Request to reconsider its refusal to register an AI-generated work... that one that won the art competition 😳 In short: Jason Allen failed to meet the de minimis standard. #copyright #AI #GenerativeAI [image] @neermcd : Yesterday the U.S. Copyright Office affirmed a refusal denying registration of the below image. USCO stated the work is more than a de minimis amount of content generated by AI, and therefore, must be disclaimed. [image] @coreybrickley : sorry boys, paint overs won't cut it [image] Reid Southen / @rahll : Excellent thread from an IP lawyer. The US copyright office has again refused to allow copyright registration to that AI generated painting that won an art competition. AI advocates keep saying how artists are losing the battle, adapt or die, yet here we are with another win... @franklingraves : The takeaway: Using Midjourney? Be prepared to disclaim when registering a work, and then be left questioning what you actually own and are able to protect 😅 Using any other AI tool? Be prepared to disclaim, and also question what's protectable. Tom Coates / @tomcoates : @sampullara “Real artists” were the ones that suffered when he won that prize https://www.nytimes.com/... Wagner James Au / @slhamlet : I feel like the “Generative AI will totally transform Hollywood and all media!” hype is sorta undercut by the small matter that it can't be copyrighted? https://www.reuters.com/... Forums: Hacker News : US rejects AI copyright for famous state fair-winning Midjourney art Msmash / Slashdot : US Copyright Office Denies Protection for Another AI-Created Image Ars OpenForum : US rejects AI copyright for famous state fair-winning Midjourney art See also Mediagazer

Reuters Blake Brittain

Context & Ripple Effects

The decision applies the Copyright Office’s earlier human-authorship line: protection for AI-assisted work turns on whether the protected expression reflects the creator’s own mental conception, not simply the amount of prompting or post-production.

It also narrows the apparent ambiguity created when a Midjourney-based comic received a copyright registration with AI-generated artwork, while following the Office’s earlier rejection of an AI-created artwork lacking human authorship.

First-order effects

  • Jason Allen cannot obtain registration for the image as submitted, because the Office did not treat the Midjourney-generated expression as sufficiently attributable to him despite the prompt iterations and Photoshop work.
  • Creators using image generators have a clearer immediate limit: edits and instructions do not by themselves secure protection for the generated image unless the human-authored contribution is separable and meaningful.

Second-order effects

  • Creative professionals and platforms will have stronger incentives to document human-made elements and to structure workflows around clearly identifiable edits, rather than rely on prompt volume as evidence of authorship.
  • For buyers and licensors, exclusive-rights claims over largely AI-generated visuals become harder to rely on, potentially shifting value toward human-authored components and contractual rights.

Third-order effects

  • If this approach persists, generative-image markets may split between works with demonstrable human authorship that can be registered and abundant AI output that is harder to monopolize through copyright.
  • The decision reinforces a policy boundary around human authorship while leaving continuing pressure on courts and lawmakers to address ownership, training data, and infringement disputes involving generative systems.

The trend: Generative-AI commercialization is being shaped by a growing divide between using AI as a tool within human authorship and seeking copyright in AI-generated output itself.

Discussion

  • @glinden.bsky.social Greg Linden on bluesky
    This will have a huge impact on companies building products that attempt to generate useful art using AI.  If you can't secure exclusive rights to these works, it reduces the value to customers.  [embedded post]
  • @tomcoates Tom Coates on x
    @sampullara “Real artists” were the ones that suffered when he won that prize https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @franklingraves @franklingraves on x
    What was insufficient to meet the de minimis standard for human involvement? 🚫 624 revisions and text prompts 🚫 Editing out flaws in Adobe Photoshop 🚫 Refusal to disclaim the generative outputs of Midjourney and Gigapixel AI
  • @slhamlet Wagner James Au on x
    I feel like the “Generative AI will totally transform Hollywood and all media!” hype is sorta undercut by the small matter that it can't be copyrighted? https://www.reuters.com/...
  • @alexjc @alexjc on x
    USCA acknowledged his visual edits met the bar for Copyright registration, but he wanted Copyright registration for the whole work including what Midjourney did. At the same time, he stubbornly refused to specify exactly what he edited — thus nothing could be granted to him. [ima…
  • @glynntarrant @glynntarrant on x
    It's good to see Jason is still struggling with trying to copyright this AI generated image. Also, since he was and still is unwilling to disclaim the AI generated image, he's going to be stuck in this legal loop for a while.
  • @franklingraves @franklingraves on x
    The @CopyrightOffice has issued a denial for a Second Request to reconsider its refusal to register an AI-generated work... that one that won the art competition 😳 In short: Jason Allen failed to meet the de minimis standard. #copyright #AI #GenerativeAI [image]
  • @neermcd @neermcd on x
    Yesterday the U.S. Copyright Office affirmed a refusal denying registration of the below image. USCO stated the work is more than a de minimis amount of content generated by AI, and therefore, must be disclaimed. [image]
  • @coreybrickley @coreybrickley on x
    sorry boys, paint overs won't cut it [image]
  • @rahll Reid Southen on x
    Excellent thread from an IP lawyer. The US copyright office has again refused to allow copyright registration to that AI generated painting that won an art competition. AI advocates keep saying how artists are losing the battle, adapt or die, yet here we are with another win...
  • @franklingraves @franklingraves on x
    The takeaway: Using Midjourney? Be prepared to disclaim when registering a work, and then be left questioning what you actually own and are able to protect 😅 Using any other AI tool? Be prepared to disclaim, and also question what's protectable.