A day after announcing that “fair use” would not shield AI training models against potential copyright infringement, President Donald Trump fired Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, and her superior, Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden. These layoffs may shape the future of copyright law in the age of AI.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Perlmutter’s dismissal on May 10 came just one day after the Copyright Office released the third installment of its “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence” report – an installment rejecting the AI industry’s theory that training generative models using copyrighted works constitutes fair use.
Notably, the Register of Copyrights is not a presidential appointee. Instead, the position is filled by the Librarian of Congress, a role that itself requires Senate confirmation. Legal scholars and lawmakers have expressed concern over the President’s actions. Law professor Blake E. Reid noted that the Library of Congress, which houses the Copyright Office, is a “hydra” of legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Accordingly, some scholars argue that this set-up makes it a poor fit for executive control.
Further complicating matters, several Department of Justice officials were appointed to acting leadership roles within the Library of Congress, without Senate approval.
The Copyright Office has historically operated with a degree of political insulation, due to the technical nature of its work and the bipartisan complexity of copyright law. That independence is now under threat. Democratic lawmakers have voiced alarm that the firings signal a shift toward politicization at a time when the agency’s decisions must strike a balance between AI and creative industries.
The Copyright Office has traditionally maintained a degree of independence, reflecting the technical nature of its work and the complex, often bipartisan, landscape of copyright law. Recent developments have raised concerns among some observers about potential shifts in how the Office operates. These concerns come at a time when the agency faces important decisions that will affect both AI innovation and the creative industries.
Implications for AI and Copyright
The implications of these actions for AI and copyrightability are significant. The Copyright Office’s recent report took a largely negative stance on AI – a position that could shape litigation and policy for years to come. Critics argue that political influence on the agency’s leadership may cause artists and their representatives to question the objectivity and durability of its guidance.
Some believe that the firings could chill future regulatory efforts. For example, if agency heads fear removal for issuing opinions that conflict with top executive priorities, the integrity of administrative decision-making may suffer. These critics argue that maintaining confidence in expert-driven and independent decision-making is especially important in the context of AI, where legal frameworks are still evolving.
Conclusion
As the debate over AI and intellectual property intensifies, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the U.S. Copyright Office is emerging as a central gateway to the future of AI law. Its decisions and policy direction will play a pivotal role in determining how creative works generated by or with AI are addressed under existing legal frameworks.