The U.S. Copyright Office Releases AI Copyrightability Report

In January 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released its second report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, titled Part 2: Copyrightability. This document provides critical insights into whether works generated using AI can receive copyright protection.

The report reaffirms that under U.S. law, only works with sufficient human creative input can be copyrighted, while fully AI-generated content does not qualify. With AI tools becoming integral to creative industries worldwide, this ruling is a major step in clarifying copyright boundaries for AI-assisted content.

Now, I’d like to ask – what does this mean for Brunei’s creative industry? How can we develop our own policies to ensure our artists, designers, and content creators are protected in an AI-powered future?

While the document (actual document link here) focuses on the U.S. Copyright Office, I would like to explore how it could be adapted and applied to Brunei’s context.

Disclaimer: These are my personal thoughts, and I do not claim to be an expert in copyright laws or legal matters. My goal is to encourage discussion and raise awareness about how AI-generated content might be addressed in Brunei’s creative landscape. Note also that AI played a part in generating the outline of this article and the images I use here.

Key Takeaways from the U.S. Copyright Office Report

The Copyright and AI Report (Part 2: Copyrightability) covers several key aspects of AI and copyright, focusing on what makes a work copyrightable when AI is involved. Below are the most crucial findings:

1. AI-Generated Works Alone Are Not Copyrightable

If an artist uses tools like MidJourney, DALL·E, or Runway AI to generate an image without making any edits or adding personal input, the output is not copyrightable.

This is because the AI tool is making the creative choices, not the human. Since U.S. copyright law requires a human author, purely AI-generated works do not qualify for protection.

Let’s put a little bit into the Brunei context. This raises questions about AI-generated content related to national identity and heritage. If a designer uses AI to create artwork inspired by Brunei’s culture without modification, should copyright laws acknowledge it? Additionally, should AI-generated art that incorporates Brunei’s unique cultural symbols, traditional motifs, or historical narratives be considered part of the nation’s intellectual and creative heritage? The lack of legal clarity may leave local artists vulnerable to disputes over ownership, and it is crucial to define how AI-assisted works fit within the broader framework of cultural preservation. Addressing this issue early could help protect the integrity of Bruneian creative works while fostering an environment where AI can be responsibly integrated into artistic expression.

2. Human Contribution Is Key

For a work to qualify for copyright, there must be significant human input in one or more of the following ways:

• Expressive Inputs: A human provides sketches, detailed original text, or designs that are incorporated into the AI-generated content.
• Creative Modifications & Arrangements: The AI-generated content is heavily edited, restructured, or curated in a meaningful way.

To put that into context, here are a couple of examples.

A photographer who uses AI to enhance an original photograph by adjusting lighting, refining details, and adding digital elements that reflect a unique artistic style would likely qualify for copyright protection. The edited version is considered a creative work since the human author has applied their personal artistic judgment.

Similarly, a Bruneian composer might use AI to generate variations of a traditional ‘Gulingtangan’ melody, then rearrange the composition, integrate live instrumental performances, and incorporate lyrics reflecting Brunei’s cultural heritage. In such a case, the resulting work would likely be considered an original creation eligible for copyright. However, the AI-generated melody alone, without human modification, would not be eligible for copyright.

3. Prompts Alone Do Not Qualify

Simply entering text prompts into an AI tool does not establish authorship.

If a writer asks ChatGPT to “write a short story about a fisherman in Brunei who discovers a mystical pearl,” and the AI generates a fully-formed story, the writer cannot claim copyright over it. The AI made all the creative decisions in structuring the story, developing characters, and writing the plot.

Copyright law requires direct creative expression, meaning that simply giving a command to AI is not enough to establish ownership.

This has significant implications for Brunei’s creative industry. If a Bruneian comic book artist prompts AI to generate a script for a new comic, they must rewrite or modify the story to be eligible for copyright. Otherwise, the AI-created script remains public domain.

Why This Matters for Brunei’s Creative Industry

As of this writing, Brunei does not yet have clear legal policies on AI-generated content, but this discussion is essential for the local creative industry. As AI tools become more advanced, artists, designers, musicians, and content creators need clarity on how their work will be protected.

Here are some key areas where Brunei can take the lead in AI copyright policies:

1. Developing AI-Specific Copyright Guidelines

The absence of AI-specific copyright laws in Brunei means that AI-generated works fall into a legal grey area.

• Should Brunei adopt a hybrid approach, where AI-assisted works are protected if they meet specific criteria?
• What legal frameworks could ensure that local artists retain rights over AI-enhanced creations?
• Could Brunei establish industry standards that require disclosure of AI-generated elements in copyrighted works?

By proactively addressing these issues, Brunei can set clear policies that protect both human creativity and AI-assisted innovation.

2. Encouraging Local Creators to Use AI Ethically & Strategically

AI is a powerful tool, but Bruneian artists need to understand how to incorporate it while maintaining copyright ownership.

• Should Brunei implement workshops and training sessions to help creatives navigate AI copyright challenges?
• What protections can be put in place to prevent AI-generated content from being misattributed or commercially exploited without consent?
• How can Brunei’s creative community collaborate with legal experts to draft industry best practices for AI usage?

This is where, by equipping local creators with the knowledge to use AI ethically, Brunei can ensure that technology enhances, rather than replaces, human artistry.

3. Positioning Brunei as a Regional Leader in AI Copyright Policy

Southeast Asia has not yet fully developed AI-specific copyright frameworks, or at least, there is limited publicly available information on such regulations. Brunei has the opportunity to take the lead in shaping AI copyright policies that balance creative freedom with legal protections. This could be done through independent policy development or through regional collaborations with neighbouring countries to create a unified approach to AI-generated content regulation.

• By studying how other nations handle AI copyright, Brunei can adopt policies that safeguard artists’ rights while fostering innovation.
• Public consultations with creators, policymakers, and tech leaders could help develop AI regulations that are both practical and forward-thinking.
• Brunei’s unique cultural heritage could serve as a test case for AI copyright protections that preserve national identity while embracing technological change.

With AI-generated content becoming more prevalent, Brunei’s government, legal experts and creative industries must work together to ensure that artists retain ownership of their work in an AI-driven world.