A US federal judge has confirmed that artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI) is not eligible for copyright protection. This ruling came as a rejection of a lawsuit filed by AI entrepreneur Stephen Thaler against the US Copyright Office. Thaler, who runs the neural network company Imagination Engines, had filed an application in 2018 to protect artwork created by his AI system, the Creativity Machine. However, the Copyright Office denied his application, stating that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection.
In her ruling, US District Judge Beryl Howell emphasized that human creativity channeled through new tools or media forms is at the core of copyright ability. While copyright law is designed to adapt to changing times, it has never stretched so far to protect works generated by technology without any guidance from a human hand.
Thaler argued that the AI should be eligible as an author if it meets the criteria for authorship, with the system’s owner being the true copyright owner. He claimed that the Copyright Office’s refusal was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the judge rejected Thaler’s petition for judicial review.
The Copyright Office had previously stated that AI-generated works are not copyrightable. However, in March, it clarified its policy, noting that content created with the assistance of AI could be protected if a human had selected or arranged it in a sufficiently creative way to constitute an original work of authorship.
The role of AI in artwork has also become a contentious issue in the entertainment industry. A Hollywood writers’ strike has been ongoing for months, with over 160,000 film, radio, and television workers walking off their jobs. They are demanding guarantees from producers that AI cannot be used to undercut their pay or replace them entirely.
In January, a group of artists filed a class-action lawsuit against AI art generators Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DreamUp. They described art-generating AI as a parasite that could cause irreparable harm to artists. The lawsuit alleged that these AI tools violated artists’ rights by using their content for training purposes without consent or compensation and profiting from the results.
This ruling and the ongoing debates surrounding AI’s role in creative works highlight the complex legal and ethical issues that arise as technology continues to advance. While AI can assist in the creative process, the question of ownership and authorship remains a challenge that requires careful consideration and legal clarity.
Source link
