Recommended Free Tools
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Free scan · exact hardware match
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Free scan · no reinstall
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Free scan · under a minute
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
The COPIED Act was a bipartisan Senate proposal introduced in July 2024—not a law that immediately banned AI companies from using artists’ or journalists’ work. The bill sought to create common standards for content provenance, watermarking, and synthetic-media detection. It also proposed a way for creators and publishers to attach machine-readable usage terms to their work, including restrictions on AI training or AI-generated content without permission.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Copyright Law | $151.10 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Copyright Law: Cases and Materials (v8.0) | $21.70 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Copyright Law of the United States: and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code | $10.32 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Copyright Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Copyright Handbook, The: What Every Writer Needs to Know | $37.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Its central idea was creator control through traceable information about where digital content came from and how it had been edited—not a universal copyright prohibition on training AI models.
What was the COPIED Act?
The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act, known as the COPIED Act, was introduced in the Senate in July 2024 by Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington; Martin Heinrich, Democrat of New Mexico; and Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee.
#1 Best Overall
The proposal addressed two connected problems: the difficulty of controlling how creative work is used by artificial-intelligence systems, and the difficulty of telling whether an image, recording, video, or document is authentic, altered, or entirely synthetic.
According to the Senate Commerce Committee announcement and contemporaneous TechCrunch coverage, the bill would have focused on:
Recommended Free Tools
- Content-provenance information showing where digital material came from and how it changed.
- Watermarking and related authenticity signals.
- Standards for identifying AI-generated or AI-altered content.
- Machine-readable usage preferences for creators and publishers.
- Possible legal remedies for unauthorized use of protected content or tampering with provenance information.
Bipartisan sponsorship showed support for addressing the issue across party lines. It did not mean the proposal passed or became law.
Why lawmakers proposed it
Artists, photographers, musicians, songwriters, publishers, and journalists increasingly distribute work through platforms where files can be copied, transformed, and collected at scale. AI developers may obtain training material from the open web, while platforms and users can reuse images, recordings, articles, and video without a clear record of the creator’s preferences.
That creates several separate problems:
- Training disputes: creators may not have a reliable technical way to communicate that their work should not be used to train an AI model.
- Imitation and exploitation: an AI system can reproduce recognizable elements of a creator’s work, voice, or presentation even when the legal status of that use is disputed.
- Deepfakes: manipulated media can remove context, imitate a person, or falsely suggest that a journalist, artist, public figure, or news organization said or created something.
- Authenticity problems: viewers often cannot tell whether a photograph, audio clip, or video is original, edited, or generated.
- Weak visible signals: a visible watermark can be cropped or covered, while ordinary file metadata can disappear during copying or conversion.
The COPIED Act attempted to address these problems with shared technical infrastructure rather than relying only on lawsuits after misuse occurred.
How content provenance would work
Provenance is machine-readable information about a digital item’s origin and history. Depending on the system, it may record who created the item, when it was made, which tools edited it, what versions came before it, and whether the owner attached usage restrictions.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchFor example, a photographer might publish an image with a provenance record stating that the image was created by the photographer, edited in a specified application, and may not be used to train an AI model without authorization. A newsroom could attach comparable information to an original photograph, video, or audio recording.
The bill envisioned common standards so that creators would not need a different incompatible label for every social network, publisher, editing application, or AI service. It also sought to involve the National Institute of Standards and Technology in standards related to provenance, watermarking, synthetic-content detection, and information about the origin of AI-generated media.
Those technologies are related, but they are not identical:
| Technology | What it does | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Provenance metadata | Records origin, edits, and usage information in a structured format. | It can be stripped, damaged, or lost when content is copied, converted, or re-uploaded. |
| Watermarking | Adds a visible or embedded signal associated with ownership, origin, or synthetic generation. | Visible marks can be cropped; embedded marks may fail after editing or compression. |
| AI detection | Attempts to infer whether content was generated or altered by AI. | Detection is probabilistic and can produce false positives or false negatives. |
Provenance is strongest when the chain of custody is preserved from creation through publication and distribution. A screenshot, screen recording, analog recording, or heavily edited copy may no longer carry the original record. The proposal therefore depended on broad platform participation, interoperability, verification, and enforcement.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Would it have banned AI training on artists’ and journalists’ work?
No—not across the board. The COPIED Act should not be described as a universal ban on training AI models with copyrighted material.
Its reported approach was narrower: qualifying content could carry provenance information communicating that it could not be used to train AI models or generate AI content without authorization. The proposal aimed to give content owners a clearer mechanism for setting terms, potentially including compensation.
That distinction matters because the bill’s effect would have depended on the content’s status and the system’s implementation:
- Unmarked material: the proposal did not automatically place every item of copyrighted content outside AI training. The treatment of content without qualifying provenance information would have remained important.
- Provenance-protected material: the bill sought to make an owner’s restrictions more visible and technically actionable when the relevant information accompanied the content.
- Facts and ideas: copyright generally protects original expression, not bare facts or ideas. The wording of a news article, a photograph, video, or audio recording is different from the underlying event or information being reported.
- AI outputs: a restriction on using source material for training would not automatically decide whether a later AI-generated output infringed copyright.
The proposal therefore addressed one part of the larger AI debate: how creators could communicate and enforce usage preferences. It did not settle every question about copyright ownership, fair use, style imitation, model outputs, or commercial exploitation.
Rank #3
What it could have meant for artists and publishers
The likely beneficiaries included individual artists and illustrators, photographers, videographers, musicians, songwriters, performers, music publishers, newspapers, magazines, local newsrooms, freelance journalists, documentary producers, stock-media libraries, and archives.
A standardized provenance system could have helped a creator:
- Document the origin and editing history of a work.
- Communicate whether AI training or generation was permitted.
- Support a licensing or compensation discussion.
- Make unauthorized alteration easier to identify.
- Give audiences more information about whether published media was original or synthetic.
For a newsroom, provenance could help distinguish an original staff photograph from a manipulated repost. For a musician, it could provide structured information about a recording’s source and permitted uses. For a freelance illustrator, it could carry a restriction across participating services instead of relying on a note that might be ignored or lost.
But a technical standard could also favor large rights-holders if maintaining records, checking ownership, and pursuing violations required expensive software or legal support. The system would be more useful to independent creators if attaching and managing provenance were inexpensive, simple, and available across common publishing tools.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What obligations could AI companies and platforms have faced?
The proposal contemplated a world in which platforms and AI companies would need to do more than accept files and ignore their history. Depending on the final statutory language and implementing standards, practical responsibilities could have included:
- Supporting provenance information in upload, editing, publishing, and AI-generation workflows.
- Preserving provenance data through transformations such as resizing, transcoding, thumbnail creation, and format conversion.
- Respecting creator-set restrictions attached to qualifying content.
- Detecting or responding to tampering with provenance records.
- Supporting interoperable standards for images, audio, video, and text.
- Creating procedures for disputes involving false, incomplete, conflicting, or malicious provenance claims.
Those requirements would have created real costs. A platform might not know whether the person attaching a restriction actually owned all the material in a file. Content may contain licensed photographs, samples, fonts, quotations, or other third-party elements. An automated system could also wrongly block criticism, parody, commentary, archival use, research, or other lawful activity.
Small platforms could have faced a disproportionate burden if compliance required infrastructure designed for much larger services. The proposal’s practical impact would therefore have depended heavily on the standards, exceptions, verification rules, and enforcement mechanisms ultimately adopted.
Rank #4
What enforcement did the proposal contemplate?
Contemporaneous coverage described potential legal action against platforms that used protected content without permission and against parties that tampered with provenance information. The proposal also aimed to make usage terms—including possible compensation arrangements—more enforceable.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
That does not mean the bill guaranteed payment to every creator. It sought to give owners a mechanism to set terms and pursue misuse, but the available summaries do not establish every detail about damages, jurisdiction, procedural requirements, or the precise scope of any private right of action. Those points should be determined from the introduced bill text and official legislative record, not inferred from headlines.
Likewise, the proposed involvement of NIST did not mean NIST had already finalized a universal standard under the bill. Standards would have required technical development and adoption across the ecosystem.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the proposal differed from copyright law
Copyright law addresses ownership and infringement of protected expression. The COPIED Act addressed a different layer: authentication, provenance, usage signaling, and synthetic-media integrity.
A provenance record could help document where a file came from, but it would not independently prove copyright ownership, originality, registration, or infringement. Conversely, removing metadata would not automatically prove infringement, and adding a restrictive label would not automatically make every later use unlawful.
The proposal would have operated alongside copyright law, contract law, rights of publicity, unfair-competition rules, and state laws addressing deepfakes or impersonation. It was not a complete answer to litigation over whether AI model training is fair use, whether a particular output is substantially similar to protected expression, or whether style imitation violates an independent legal right.
Where provenance systems can fail
A provenance framework is not an unbreakable lock. Its reliability depends on what happens after the creator publishes the work.
Best Value
- Metadata stripping: copying, exporting, or converting a file may remove structured information.
- Reposting: a new upload may be separated from the original chain of custody.
- Screen captures: screenshots and screen recordings often do not preserve the source record.
- Conflicting claims: several people may claim ownership or attach incompatible restrictions.
- Third-party material: a creator may not have authority to restrict every element contained in a work.
- False claims: a person could attach a provenance record to material they did not create.
- Model timing: a model trained before a restriction was attached raises different questions from a model that receives protected material afterward.
- Detection errors: compression, translation, editing, or ordinary post-production can make AI-detection results less reliable.
These limitations are why provenance, watermarking, and detection should be treated as complementary systems—not interchangeable proof of authenticity or legality.
What creators and publishers can check now
The COPIED Act itself did not create an immediately available nationwide protection. Creators and publishers can nevertheless examine the systems they already use:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Whether portfolio, publishing, stock-media, and newsroom tools preserve content-provenance records.
- Whether an AI service offers a contractual opt-out, licensing program, or other usage-control mechanism.
- Whether a platform supports interoperable content-credentials or related provenance standards.
- Whether contracts clearly address AI training, synthetic generation, sublicensing, and compensation.
- Whether original files, edit histories, licenses, and publication records are retained separately from public uploads.
These measures may improve documentation or contractual leverage, but they should not be confused with statutory rights that would have been created by the proposed bill.
Status of the COPIED Act
Introduced: July 2024, during the 118th Congress.
Legal effect: The proposal was not automatically law and should not be described as a current nationwide ban or creator-payment right.
What it proposed: Provenance, watermarking, synthetic-content standards, usage signaling, and remedies for certain unauthorized use or tampering.
Current-status caution: Any claim that a successor bill was introduced or that the proposal was enacted requires confirmation in the current official legislative record, such as Congress.gov or GovInfo.
The Senate’s COPIED Act was significant because it treated provenance and creator-set usage terms as part of the AI policy problem. But its proposed solution was a technical and legal framework for communicating and enforcing restrictions—not a blanket answer to whether AI companies may train on copyrighted work.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
