AI-generated artworks not qualified for copyright protection, US court rules

A U.S. court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that artworks generated by artificial intelligence without any human involvement cannot be granted copyright protection under U.S. law.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell stated last week that only creative works produced by human authors are eligible for copyrights. This ruling affirms the decision made by the Copyright Office to reject an application submitted by computer scientist Stephen Thaler on behalf of his AI system named DABUS.

This decision comes after a series of setbacks for Thaler's attempts to secure U.S. patents for inventions attributed to his DABUS system. Thaler had also sought patents for DABUS-generated innovations in other countries like the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, with limited success.

Thaler's legal representative, Ryan Abbott, expressed strong disagreement with the court's ruling and announced plans to appeal. In contrast, the Copyright Office released a statement on Monday asserting that the court's decision was the correct one.

The realm of generative AI has introduced fresh challenges in the domain of intellectual property. Even an artist's attempt to obtain copyrights for artworks created through the AI system Midjourney was rejected by the Copyright Office, despite the artist's argument that the AI was integral to their creative process.

Also Read Hollywood vs AI: Why famous actors including Oppenheimer, Barbie cast are on strike

Lawsuits are pending over the unauthorised use of copyrighted material to train generative AI models. Judge Howell noted on Friday that the integration of AI into artistic processes will lead to complex inquiries about copyright law.

In the case at hand, however, Howell found the matter less intricate. In 2018, Thaler applied for copyright protection for a visual artwork named "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which he claimed was generated solely by his AI system. The Copyright Office turned down the application last year, asserting that copyrightable works necessitate human authorship.

Thaler contested this decision in federal court, arguing that the requirement for human authorship lacks a clear legal foundation. He claimed that granting AI-generated works copyrights aligns with the purpose of copyright as outlined in the U.S. Constitution—to foster scientific and artistic advancement.

Judge Howell sided with the Copyright Office, emphasising that human authorship is an essential cornerstone of copyright law, grounded in "long-standing understanding" spanning centuries.

The U.S. court's ruling that artworks created solely by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted has implications that extend beyond its borders and may influence discussions and decisions on copyright law and AI-generated content worldwide.

Here are some potential global implications

Legal Precedent for Other Jurisdictions: While the ruling directly applies to U.S. copyright law, it could serve as a persuasive precedent for courts in other countries facing similar cases. Courts in other jurisdictions might consider the U.S. decision when dealing with AI-generated content copyright issues.

International Harmonisation: The ruling could contribute to the ongoing international efforts to harmonise copyright laws and regulations, especially in light of the growing global challenges posed by AI-generated content. Countries might reference or incorporate the U.S. ruling in their own legal frameworks.

Defining Authorship and Creativity: The ruling raises questions about the definition of authorship and creativity in the context of AI-generated content. Other countries may need to assess their own legal definitions to determine whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection.

New Legal Frameworks: The ruling could prompt countries to revisit and possibly update their copyright laws to address AI-generated content specifically. This might involve clarifying the roles of AI systems and human creators in the creative process.

Ethical and Moral Considerations: The decision brings attention to the ethical and moral dimensions of AI-generated content ownership and recognition. Countries may need to consider societal values and expectations when determining the legal status of AI-created works.

International Collaboration: Countries may collaborate to establish international standards and guidelines for AI-generated content copyright, aiming to provide consistent and clear rules for creators, users, and AI developers.

Also Read

Battle of the billionaires: Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg cage match could make over $1 billion

Google appeals to Supreme Court to quash antitrust directives on Android in India