US Court Rules AI-Generated Art Ineligible for Copyright Protection
Artistic creations generated solely by artificial intelligence (AI) without any human contribution are ineligible for copyright protection under US law, according to a recent ruling by a United States court in Washington, DC. District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the decision of the Copyright Office to dismiss an application submitted by computer scientist Stephen Thaler on behalf of his AI system named DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).
This ruling brings further disappointment to Thaler, who has previously faced unsuccessful attempts to secure US patents for innovations claimed to be devised by DABUS. Thaler’s efforts also extended to international patent applications for DABUS-generated inventions in countries like the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, albeit with limited success.
Ryan Abbott, Thaler’s legal representative, strongly disagreed with the court’s decision and expressed plans for an appeal. However, the Copyright Office released a statement reaffirming its confidence in the correctness of the court’s ruling.
The realm of intellectual property rights has become increasingly complex with the emergence of generative AI. Notably, the Copyright Office rejected an artist’s request for copyrights related to AI-produced images from the system called Midjourney, despite the artist’s argument that AI played a role in their creative process.
The landscape is further complicated by pending legal actions involving the unauthorized use of copyrighted content to train generative AI systems. This raises questions about the boundaries of copyright and the incorporation of AI tools by artists, which District Judge Howell acknowledged would lead to intricate inquiries into copyright law. Nevertheless, she clarified that the current case was comparatively less intricate.
Thaler’s application, filed in 2018, aimed to secure copyright protection for an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, generated solely by his AI system without any human intervention. The Copyright Office’s denial of the application last year highlighted their belief that creative works require human authorship to qualify for copyright protection.
Thaler’s counterargument, presented in federal court, contended that the requirement of human authorship lacks a precise legal definition and that extending copyrights to AI creations aligns with the fundamental intent of copyright law as outlined in the US Constitution, which is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Echoing the Copyright Office’s perspective, Judge Howell agreed that the foundation of copyright law lies in human authorship, which has been settled and understood for centuries.
In conclusion, the recent ruling by the US court determines that artistic creations generated solely by AI and lacking human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection. This decision has far-reaching implications for the emerging domain of generative AI and raises important questions about the boundaries and future of intellectual property rights.
