Court Declares AI-Created Artwork Not Subject to Copyright Protection Due to Lack of Human Authorship
A federal judge in the US has concurred with government officials that a work of art created by artificial intelligence cannot be granted copyright protection due to the absence of human authorship. Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia stated in the ruling, obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, that copyright laws do not extend to safeguarding creations produced by technology without any human involvement. The judge emphasized that human authorship is an essential prerequisite for copyright protection.
Dr. Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office after the agency rejected his second attempt to protect an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise (pictured above) in 2022. The USCO admitted that the work was created by an artificial intelligence model that Thaler calls creativity. Machine. The computer scientist applied for the copyright of the work himself and described the work as “work for hire for the owner of the Creativity Machine”. He argued that the USCO’s “human factor” requirement was unconstitutional.
Howell cited rulings in other cases where copyright protection was denied to works of art that did not involve human involvement, such as the famous case of a monkey that managed to take a few selfies. “Courts have consistently refused to recognize copyright in works created without human input,” the judge wrote.
The judge noted that the growing influence of generative AI leads to “challenging questions” about the level of human input required to qualify for copyright protection, as well as how original works of art created by systems trained on copyrighted works can actually be (an issue that is at the heart of several other legal as the subject of fights).
However, Howell indicated that Thaler’s case was not particularly complicated, as he admitted that he was not involved in the creation of A Recent Entrance to Paradise. “Since no human has participated in the creation of the work, the clear and direct answer given by the [Federal] Register is: No,” Howell concluded. Thaler plans to appeal the decision.
According to Bloomberg, this is the first ruling in the United States regarding copyright protection for AI-produced art, although the USCO has been fighting it for some time. In March, the agency published guidelines for the copyright of images created by artificial intelligence, which are based on text prompts – usually they are not eligible for copyright protection. However, the agency has offered hope to generative artificial intelligence enthusiasts. “The answer depends on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool works and how it was used to create the final work,” USCO said. “This is necessarily a case-by-case study.”
The agency has also granted limited copyright protection to a graphic novel with AI-generated elements. It said in February that while the images created by Midjourney in Kris Kashtanova’s Zarya of the Dawn were not copyrightable, the text and layout of the work were.
