The sudden dismissal of the US Copyright Office head raises questions about fair use, AI, and the protection of musicians.

Trump fires copyright chief after AI report drops

Just two days after the US Copyright Office released a report questioning the use of copyrighted content in AI training, President Donald Trump has fired the Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. The US Copyright Office released a pre-publication report, casting doubt on the legality of AI companies using copyrighted material for fair use without requiring permission to train their models.

The timing of the dismissal has sparked speculation that Perlmutter’s removal was tied to the report’s content. Although pre-publications aren’t standard procedure, sources suggest the early release may have been to ensure the findings were public before a possible leadership shake-up.

Perlmutter, who took the role in 2020 during Trump’s first administration, wasn’t the only one ousted. Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress who appointed her, who also fired. While these dismissals may seem interlinked, Hayden’s appears to be related to her pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies which conflict with Trump’s administration. 

A look inside the AI report

The Copyright Office honed in on whether, and how, AI developers should be regulated when it comes to using copyrighted content to train models. It concluded that some “fair use” exceptions may apply, like use for research or scholarship. However, these exceptions “depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs”. The report makes it clear that commercial exploitation that directly competes with the original content likely oversteps fair use boundaries.

A key passage reads:

“Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.”

For music creators, this could and still can be a win. This would mean that AI companies could not freely use artists’ content unless they obtain proper licenses with labels etc. The report recognized that is too early for any government intervention, insisting that voluntary licensing agreements are the best current path forward. However, it didn’t rule out collective licensing if the market fails to adapt.

Why this matters to the music industry

The Copyright Office doesn’t have the power to set binding copyright law, but its guidance is often influential in legal and legislative decisions. Courts frequently reference expertise from outside sources, with this impacting on potential AI and copyright laws. That’s why this pre-publication could still carry weight even if the leadership behind it has been removed. 

The swift dismissal raises concerns that the US government may favour a more AI-friendly direction, one that could undermine creator protections. Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the Committee of House Administration, condemned the firing as a “brazen, unprecedented power grab”, noting that it came shortly after Perlmutter refused to approve “Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models”. Musk, a close Trump ally, has co-founded two AI companies, and has recently supported calls to “delete all IP law”.

Yet, the Trump administration’s stance on the issue is far from clear. The President even reposted commentary on his Truth Social platform that read:

 “Now tech bros are going to attempt to steal creators’ copyright for AI profits. This is 100% unacceptable.”

Image credits: The Verge

This contradiction can only deepen the uncertainty and confusion for music creators, especially as Trump appears caught between backing his tech allies while seeming to support creators’ rights. So, who really knows what side of the fence Trump favors.

So, what now?

For the music industry, this episode only adds to the confusion. The Copyright Office pre-publication showed promise in defending creator rights against AI companies. Being largely protected, this would mean creators would no longer have to worry about their work being freely taken without permission, credit, or compensation. On the other hand, the swift firing of the head of the US Copyright Office, and no clear direction from the Trump administration at present makes the path forward uncertain.

Still, the report itself could influence future court decisions or legislative moves. Amongst a push from tech companies for a fair use exception, it offers a framework for how the US could regulate AI companies’ use of copyrighted content. 

Whether the Trump administration will follow the reports’ findings, or veer toward a tech-first approach, remains to be seen.

Get your tracks shared to streaming platforms all over the world today, for free with RouteNote.