AI Generated Art Not Eligible For Copyright, Pronounces US Judge

In a significant judgment in the AI realm, A US federal judge has pronounced that artwork created by Artificial Intelligence will not be eligible for copyrights. Judge Beryl A.

Howell was hearing a case against the US Copyright Office, which had refused to provide copyright to Stephen Thaler for an image created by a machine algorithm.

The matter dates back to 2018 when Thaler created an artwork named A Recent Entrance to Paradise" through machine learning AI. He filed for copyright as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine."

This essentially means that Thaler wanted to be recognized as the artwork's owner while the machine would be the designated author.

However, the US Copyright Office rejected the application due to a lack of human creativity involvement in the artwork creation process. Thaler then filed a lawsuit claiming the Office's refusal was arbitrary and a violation of discretion and against the law.

The Rationale Behind The Judgment

Judge Howell has now upheld the Copyright Office's views stating that human creativity is at the core of copyrightable content. The court observed that although the medium and means of human engagement are changing with evolving technologies, the core remains the same.

Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright.Judge Beryl A. Howell

Howell also explored the need for copyright law in her judgment. She stated that the law was put in place to encourage individuals to engage in creative endeavours.

By recognizing exclusive rights in a property, the government encourages citizens to create and invent. Granting copyright to an AI-generated artwork would defeat the whole purpose of the law.

Howell pointed out that there have been no cases in the past where copyright was granted to a non-human.

The court also cited the popular Naruto v. Slater monkey selfie" case, where a court denied copyright claims for photographs taken by a monkey.

Another case where a woman filed for a copyright for a book she had written by listening to a supernatural voice" was also referred to in the judgment. Both these cases point to the absurdity of the case in question.

Howell acknowledged that determining the amount of human involvement required for an artwork to be eligible for copyright is certainly challenging. However, she also noted that the present case was not a complex one. Thaler has admitted that he had played no role in the artwork creation.

It is important to note that not all AI-generated art is outright disqualified for copyright. If a creator can prove a significant human contribution" to an artwork, they might still be eligible for copyright.

What's Next?

Thaler seems to be prepared to appeal the judgment. Ryan Abbot, Thaler's attorney, respectfully disagrees" with the court's interpretation of the copyright law.

Thaler, in his argument, pointed out that the denial would be a direct violation of the notion of providing copyright to original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium' of expression".

Meanwhile, the judgment brings a sigh of relief to writers protesting against the increasing involvement of AI in creative fields. It also gives a ray of hope to authors like Sarah Silverman, who have been fighting against the illegal use of original work by AI models for training.

The post AI Generated Art Not Eligible For Copyright, Pronounces US Judge appeared first on The Tech Report.