Artists Speak Up in AI Copyright Comments

Artists submit comments to Copyright Office in support of access to AI tools, AI training, and copyright protections for AI works

Nov 6, 2023

Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) closed its public comment period for its study of copyright policy issues raised by artificial intelligence. Chamber of Progress submitted comments urging the agency to protect the advancement of generative AI and expression; uphold existing principles of fair use and prevent rightsholder abuse; and protect AI models’ access to training sets, among other priorities. 

Individual artists submitted a significant share of the 10,000 comments received by USCO, including many who urged USCO to support access to AI tools, AI training, and copyright protections for AI work.

Below is a sample of their comments to USCO during its comment period on copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence:

Protection for AI Generated Works
Elisa Shupe, Published Author and Disabled Veteran
“Even though my book was painstakingly built sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, the narrative in the media is that it’s AI trash preventing the works of legitimate authors from being discovered on Amazon. I challenge anyone who takes the time to read my book to allege it’s true. My plight and my journey through life resonate in the pages. The plot and characters are not something an AI tool dreamed up. They’re pieces of me.”

Matthew Wright, Artist
“I’m an artist that uses AI tools to assist in my creative process, and I’m inventing new processes using these tools, and wish to comment that I believe that Copyright protections already existing for “derivative works” that have “significant alterations” by the artist, such a Merz, Collage, Dadaism, and other surrealist and expressionist works, including animations such as I make, should be given equal protections.”

Access to Training Data
Mark Duncan, Video Game Designer
“The referencing of known things, copyrighted and otherwise, is the beginning of the creative process within an artist’s mind. No one has ever suggested to me that this process is a breach of copyright, only that the result cannot resemble the inspiration in a dramatic way”

Trent Sterling, Independent Game Developer
“Just as artists have learned and evolved from the works of those who came before them, AI models, too, benefit from exposure to a diverse range of creative expressions.”

Rightsholders Are Protected Under Current Law
Van Lindberg, Published Author
“U.S. copyright law is robust and has reacted appropriately to many changes in technology. For the most part, no changes are needed. The current law is the result of a careful balance between creators’ interests and the public interest. That balance must be maintained.”

AI Outputs are Non-Infringing
Pat Tremblay, Individual Artist
“AI art shares significant similarities with pop art, neo-pop art, and collage art in terms of its conceptual framework and aesthetic approach. Just like pop art, AI art challenges traditional notions of art and recontextualizes familiar imagery from popular culture.”

Michael Summey, Creator and Former Tattoo Artist
“What happens if I legally purchase a book and ask my personal AI assistant to summarize it for me? Many arguments made today would say that is illegal. Should my AI assistant have to get its own job to purchase their own copy of the book? If we rush to make decisions without considering their implications these absurdities are possible to be made into law making everyone suffer.”


Chamber of Progress ( is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future.  We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.  

Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.