Leadership Vacuum Plagues US Copyright Office Amidst AI Legal Storm
The United States Copyright Office, an institution often described as steady and predictable, finds itself in uncharted and turbulent waters. At a time when copyright law is undergoing seismic shifts, largely driven by the rapid advancements and legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence, the very office tasked with administering copyright is effectively operating without a clear, undisputed leader. This precarious situation, stemming from recent, abrupt personnel changes at the highest levels, has injected uncertainty into the core functions of the office and raised significant questions about the validity of its work and its ability to navigate the complex legal landscape ahead.
The turmoil began in May 2025, when Copyright Register Shira Perlmutter was fired via email by a White House official. Perlmutter, appointed by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, had been at the helm during a period of increasing scrutiny on the Copyright Office, particularly regarding its stance on AI-generated content. The office had issued several key rulings and guidance on the intersection of AI and copyright, becoming a central figure in the burgeoning legal battles surrounding generative models. Her dismissal, therefore, sent shockwaves through the copyright community.
Adding another layer of complexity, Perlmutter's firing was preceded by a similar dismissal of her superior, Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, who had served since 2016. Hayden was also reportedly fired by email from the White House. In Hayden's place, the White House appointed Todd Blanche, known for his previous role as President Trump's defense attorney, as the acting Librarian of Congress.
Following these dismissals, Justice Department official Paul Perkins, accompanied by a colleague, reportedly appeared at the Copyright Office carrying emails from Blanche, asserting Perkins' appointment as the Acting Register of Copyrights – effectively Perlmutter's replacement. However, this attempted transition has been met with resistance and confusion, creating a state of dual claims to leadership.
A Battle for Authority: Who is in Charge?
The core of the current crisis lies in a fundamental dispute over the authority to appoint and remove the Register of Copyrights. Traditionally, the Register is appointed by the Librarian of Congress. Perlmutter's lawsuit against the Trump administration alleges that her firing was invalid, arguing that only the Librarian of Congress holds the power to dismiss the Register. This legal challenge directly contests the White House's assertion of executive authority in this matter.
Further complicating the picture is the situation within the Library of Congress itself. Following Carla Hayden's dismissal, Robert Newlen, Hayden's long-serving second-in-command, informed LOC staff that he was the acting Librarian, making no mention of Todd Blanche. This created a parallel claim to leadership within the Library, the parent body of the Copyright Office.
Sources within the Library of Congress indicate that Perkins and his colleague did not, in fact, assume their purported roles at the Copyright Office and have not returned since their initial appearance. A congressional aide familiar with the situation echoed this, stating that the White House appointees had not shown up for work because, in their view, the President lacked the authority to appoint them, and Robert Newlen remained the legitimate Acting Librarian.
While the Department of Justice, the White House, and the Library of Congress have largely remained publicly silent on the specifics of the ongoing dispute, members of Congress have voiced their concerns. Senator Alex Padilla, for instance, has openly supported Perlmutter's position, asserting that the power to remove the Register rests solely with the Librarian of Congress and characterizing the administration's actions as an "unconstitutional attempt to seize control." These statements suggest that behind-the-scenes discussions between Congress and the White House are likely underway to find a resolution to the personnel disputes.
Operational Impacts: Uncertainty and Legal Challenges
The leadership vacuum is not merely a bureaucratic squabble; it has tangible consequences for the day-to-day operations of the US Copyright Office and, potentially, for copyright holders across the country. Immediately after Perlmutter's dismissal, the office temporarily paused the issuance of copyright registration certificates "out of an abundance of caution." This pause affected approximately 20,000 registrations, highlighting the immediate disruption caused by the uncertainty.
Although the office resumed issuing certificates on May 29, a significant change was implemented: the certificates are now being sent out without the Register's signature. The Copyright Office maintains that this does not invalidate the registrations, stating that there is no explicit legal requirement for the Register's signature on certificates. However, this change has sparked considerable debate among copyright experts and legal professionals.
Many experts believe that the absence of a recognized Register could make these registrations vulnerable to legal challenges. While the law may not explicitly mandate a signature, it does stipulate that the Register of Copyrights is responsible for determining whether submitted material constitutes copyrightable subject matter. Without a clearly defined and legally recognized Register making these determinations, IP lawyers like Rachael Dickson argue that it would be reasonable for litigators to challenge the validity of registrations issued during this period. "If you take them completely out of the equation, you have a really big problem," Dickson noted, predicting that litigators would seize upon this vulnerability.
The dysfunction extends beyond registration certificates. The Register of Copyrights performs a variety of critical functions, including advising Congress on copyright policy and recertifying key organizations within the copyright ecosystem. One such organization is the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), a nonprofit responsible for administering mechanical royalties for digital music streaming and downloads in the US. The MLC's certification is currently up for review, a process that would ordinarily involve the Register. Perlmutter's lawsuit specifically mentions that the MLC recertification process has stalled due to her inability to perform her duties.
While a source close to the MLC suggested that the lack of a specific legal deadline for recertification might allow the organization to continue operating without immediate disruption, the uncertainty remains. Crucial processes requiring the Register's oversight are either paused or proceeding under a cloud of legal ambiguity.
Another area impacted is the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), a three-person tribunal designed to handle smaller copyright disputes outside of federal court. A CCB board member is scheduled to leave this year, and the position is supposed to be filled by an appointment from the Librarian of Congress, guided by the Register of Copyrights. A job posting for the position is active, but the mechanism for filling it is unclear given the disputes over both the Librarian and Register roles. While a Library of Congress source suggested that Robert Newlen, the acting Librarian recognized by LOC staff, could potentially make the appointment, they expressed hope for a broader resolution before that becomes necessary.
AI and Copyright: A Critical Juncture
The timing of this leadership crisis could not be more challenging. The copyright world is currently grappling with the profound implications of generative AI. Major entertainment companies, authors, and artists are engaged in numerous high-profile lawsuits against AI developers, alleging copyright infringement based on the use of copyrighted works to train AI models and the outputs generated by these models. These cases are winding through the courts, and the outcomes could significantly reshape industries.
The Copyright Office plays a vital role in this evolving landscape, not only through its registration function but also by providing guidance and expertise to Congress and the public. Just days before her firing, Shira Perlmutter's office released a highly anticipated report on generative AI training and fair use. Although labeled a "prepublication" version, this report has already been cited in new litigation, such as a recent class action lawsuit against AI music generators Suno and Udio. The absence of a clear leader means that the finalization of this report, and the issuance of any further guidance on AI and copyright, are now uncertain.
The lack of stable leadership at the Copyright Office hinders its ability to provide timely and authoritative input on these complex issues. Stakeholders across creative industries, technology companies, and the legal community are looking to the office for clarity and direction. Without a recognized Register, the office's capacity to fulfill this crucial advisory role is diminished.
The Path Forward: Seeking Resolution
The current situation at the US Copyright Office is unprecedented. An institution critical to the functioning of creative industries and the protection of intellectual property is caught in a political and legal standoff. The dispute over who has the authority to appoint and remove its leadership has created a state of paralysis at a moment when decisive action and clear guidance are desperately needed.
While Perlmutter's lawsuit seeks to resolve the legality of her dismissal and the validity of the White House's appointments, the day-to-day impact on the Copyright Office's operations and the broader copyright landscape is immediate. The uncertainty surrounding registration certificates alone could lead to significant complications in future copyright litigation, potentially undermining the confidence of creators in the registration system.
The hope, as expressed by sources familiar with the situation and members of Congress, is that a resolution will be reached through discussions between Congress and the White House. Such a resolution would need to clarify the legitimate leadership of both the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, restoring stability and allowing the institutions to fully resume their functions.
Until then, the US Copyright Office remains in a state of limbo, a headless entity navigating a storm of AI-driven legal challenges and operational uncertainties. The outcome of the legal and political battles will determine not only who leads the office but also the extent to which its recent actions, including the thousands of copyright registrations issued without a Register's signature, will withstand scrutiny. For creators, businesses, and legal professionals alike, the situation is a stark reminder of the foundational importance of stable governance for the effective functioning of critical institutions like the US Copyright Office, especially in times of rapid technological and legal change.
The ongoing dispute highlights the delicate balance of power and authority within the US government structure, particularly concerning independent or quasi-independent agencies. The Library of Congress, while part of the legislative branch, houses the Copyright Office, which performs administrative functions vital to the executive branch's enforcement of copyright law. The White House's intervention in the appointments of both the Librarian and the Register has raised constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the extent of executive influence over institutions traditionally seen as operating with a degree of independence.
The legal arguments presented in Perlmutter's lawsuit and the government's response will likely delve into the historical context and statutory language governing the appointments within the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office. Examining past practices and legislative intent will be crucial in determining whether the President's actions fall within the bounds of executive authority or represent an overreach into the domain of the legislative branch.
Beyond the legal and political dimensions, the human element of this crisis is also significant. Dedicated staff within the Copyright Office are attempting to maintain operations and serve the public amidst the confusion. The pause in registrations and the change in certificate format undoubtedly create additional work and stress for the employees, who are tasked with upholding the integrity of the copyright system while the leadership structure is in disarray.
The creative industries, from individual artists and authors to large media corporations, rely on the Copyright Office for the formal recognition and protection of their works. The uncertainty surrounding the validity of registrations could have a chilling effect on creators, potentially deterring them from seeking registration or raising concerns about their ability to enforce their rights in court. This is particularly problematic in the context of AI, where the lines between creation, copying, and transformation are already being heavily debated and litigated.
The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), which facilitates royalty payments in the digital music space, represents a critical piece of infrastructure for the music industry. Any delay or uncertainty in its recertification process, which requires the Register's approval, could potentially impact the flow of royalties to songwriters and publishers, although sources suggest immediate operational disruption might be avoided due to the lack of a strict deadline.
Similarly, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) was established to provide a more accessible and less expensive forum for resolving small copyright disputes. The inability to smoothly appoint a new board member could undermine the effectiveness of this alternative dispute resolution mechanism, forcing parties back into potentially costly and time-consuming federal court litigation.
The prepublication AI report, despite its unfinished status, has already demonstrated the Copyright Office's potential influence on the AI copyright debate. Its findings and perspectives carry weight in legal arguments and policy discussions. The delay in finalizing this report and the uncertainty about future guidance from the office leave a void that could hinder the development of clear legal norms and industry practices regarding AI and intellectual property.
As the legal proceedings unfold and political negotiations continue, the focus remains on restoring stable leadership to the US Copyright Office. The resolution of this crisis is essential not only for the internal functioning of the office but also for providing clarity and confidence to the millions of creators and businesses who rely on the US copyright system to protect their work in an increasingly complex digital world. The outcome will set important precedents regarding the governance of key cultural and economic institutions and their relationship with the executive branch, particularly in rapidly evolving technological landscapes like that of artificial intelligence.