AI-Generated Art Devoid Of Human Input Cannot Be Copyrighted, US Court Rules

The judge concurred that the foundation of copyright law lies in human authorship, grounded in "settled understanding" spanning centuries.

The burgeoning domain of generative AI has introduced fresh complexities to the realm of intellectual property rights.

Source : Getty

In a recent ruling in Washington, DC, a United States court has determined that artistic creations generated solely by artificial intelligence (AI) and lacking human contribution are ineligible for copyright protection under US law. District Judge Beryl Howell underscored on Friday that only creative works produced by human authors are eligible for copyrights. This verdict upholds the decision of the Copyright Office to dismiss an application submitted by computer scientist Stephen Thaler on behalf of his autonomous AI system known as DABUS.

The ruling marks another setback for Thaler, who has previously encountered unsuccessful attempts to secure US patents for innovations he claims were devised by his DABUS technology – an abbreviation for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience.

Thaler's endeavours also extended to international patent applications for DABUS-generated inventions, encompassing nations such as the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, albeit with limited achievements.

Ryan Abbott, Thaler's legal representative, expressed strong disagreement with the court's decision and indicated plans for an appeal. In response, the Copyright Office released a statement on Monday asserting its confidence in the correctness of the court's ruling.

The burgeoning domain of generative AI has introduced fresh complexities to the realm of intellectual property rights. Notably, the Copyright Office has declined an artist's request for copyrights pertaining to AI-produced images from the system named Midjourney, despite the artist's argument that the AI played a role in their creative process.

The landscape is further complicated by pending legal actions involving the utilisation of copyrighted content to train generative AI systems, without obtaining prior authorisation.

Judge Howell highlighted the evolving challenges within copyright law, emphasising the incorporation of AI tools by artists, which she posited would lead to intricate inquiries into copyright boundaries. Nonetheless, she clarified that the current case was comparatively less intricate.

Thaler's application, filed in 2018, aimed to secure copyright protection for an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," generated solely by his AI system, void of any human intervention. The Copyright Office's denial of the application last year underscored their stance that creative works necessitate human authorship to warrant copyright protection.

Thaler's counterargument, posited in the federal court, contended that the prerequisite of human authorship lacks a precise legal definition and that extending copyrights to AI creations aligns with the fundamental intent of copyright law as outlined in the US Constitution, which is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

In alignment with the Copyright Office's perspective, Judge Howell concurred that the foundation of copyright law lies in human authorship, grounded in "settled understanding" spanning centuries.