US Court rules that AI-Generated Artworks Not Qualified for Copyright Protection
The system has introduced challenges in the domain of intellectual property worldwide
US Court rules that AI-Generated Artworks Not Qualified for Copyright Protection
The system has introduced challenges in the domain of intellectual property worldwide
The US District Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that only creative works produced by individuals are eligible for copyrights.
The 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 (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).
This decision follows a series of setbacks for Thaler, who attempted to secure US patents for inventions attributed to his system. Thaler had also sought patents for DABUS-generated innovations in other countries, including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, without much headway.
Expressing strong disagreement with the court's ruling. Thaler's legal representative, Ryan Abbott stated his plans to appeal. However, in its statement, the Copyright Office lauded the court’s decision.
AI has introduced fresh challenges in the domain of intellectual property. Earlier, an artist's attempt to obtain copyrights for artworks created through the AI system Midjourney was rejected by the Copyright Office. The artist had argued that AI was integral to his creative process.
Meanwhile, lawsuits are pending over the unauthorized use of copyrighted material to train generative AI models. Judge Howell observed that the integration of AI into artistic processes would lead to complex inquiries about copyright laws.
In Thaler’s case, Howell found that the matter was less intricate. In 2018, Thaler had applied for copyright protection for a visual artwork ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise,’ claiming it was generated solely by his AI system. The application was, however, turned down by the Copyright Office last year. It asserted that the copyright works necessitated human authorship.
The decision was contented by Thaler in federal court. He stated that the requirement for human authorship lacked a clear legal foundation. He held that granting AI-generated works copyrights aligned with the purpose as outlined in the Constitution of the United States to foster scientific and artistic advancement.
While supporting the Copyright Office, Judge Howell emphasized that human authorship was an essential cornerstone of copyright law, grounded in the “long-standing understanding” spanning centuries.
The court's ruling has implications that extend beyond its borders and may influence discussions and decisions on copyright law and AI-generated content worldwide.
Potential global implications:
Legal precedent for other jurisdictions: The ruling in the United States is directly applicable to U.S. copyright law, but it could also be used as a persuasive precedent by courts in other countries. Courts in other jurisdictions might consider the US decision when they are faced with similar cases.
International harmonization: The ruling could help to promote international harmonization of copyright laws on AI-generated content especially because the ruling provides a common framework for understanding and addressing this issue, which could be adopted by other countries.
Defining authorship and creativity: The ruling raises the issue of how to define authorship and creativity in the context of AI-generated content. Other countries may need to reconsider their own legal definitions of these terms in order to determine whether such content qualifies for copyright protection.
New legal frameworks: The ruling could lead countries to review and possibly revise their copyright laws to specifically address AI-generated content. This could involve clarifying the roles of AI systems and human creators in the creative process.
Ethical and moral considerations: The ruling highlights the ethical and moral dimensions surrounding 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.