US Court Rules that Art Created by Artificial Intelligence Cannot be Copyrighted

Growing Concerns over AI's Impact on the Artistic World

A recent decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has upheld the U.S. Copyright Office's stance that artworks created solely by artificial intelligence (AI) are not eligible for copyright protection. This ruling has sparked concerns about the potential takeover of creative industries by AI.

Artist's Strike and Fear of AI Scriptwriting Dominance

With more than 100 days since the start of the writer's strike, there has been a growing apprehension regarding the possibility of AI taking over scriptwriting. However, intellectual property regulations have consistently maintained that copyrights only apply to creations made by humans.

Judge Howell's Ruling

Judge Howell's ruling was in response to a legal dispute brought by Stephen Thaler, CEO of Imagination Engines, a neural network company. Thaler argued that AI-generated creations meeting authorship criteria should be recognized as the work of the AI's owner. However, Judge Howell disagreed, emphasizing the importance of humans as authors in copyright law.

The Value of Creativity in Copyright Law

Judge Howell referenced previous cases to support her ruling. She mentioned the Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony case, which upheld protection for ideas created by humans. She also pointed out that even a photo taken by an animal cannot be copyrighted, highlighting that copyright applies exclusively to humans. Judge Howell emphasized that copyright law is intended to motivate humans in their creative endeavors and foster innovation in science and the arts.

AI Companies and Copyright Violations

This ruling has had implications for ongoing legal discussions surrounding AI firms using copyrighted content for training. Several lawsuits filed by artists claiming copyright violations may result in AI companies having to disassemble their extensive language models.

Shifting the Conversation on AI and Copyright

While AI-created art may not be eligible for copyright, this ruling emphasizes the significant role of human creativity in the realm of intellectual property.