Court rules copyrighting AI-generated art is a no-go - even if you invented the software

A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that art created solely by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection, emphasizing the necessity of human authorship for copyright eligibility. This decision upheld the U.S. Copyright Office's rejection of computer scientist Stephen Thaler's attempt to copyright an image generated by his AI software, "Creativity Machine." Thaler argued that the human authorship requirement is outdated and unconstitutional, but the court maintained that the author must be a human who created, operated, or used the AI, not the machine itself.

Thaler's lawyer, Ryan Abbott, noted that this is the first publicized rejection of an AI-created work by the Copyright Office, raising questions about when AI-assisted art might be denied copyright. Currently, any work created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted, allowing others to use it freely. Thaler expressed disappointment, arguing that AI-generated art should have some form of protection, as he views himself as the creator and tutor of the machine that produced the artwork.

Key takeaways

A U.S. federal appeals court ruled that AI-generated art cannot be granted copyright protection without human authorship.
The court upheld the U.S. Copyright Office's decision to deny Stephen Thaler a copyright for an AI-generated image.
The ruling emphasizes that the author of a work must be a human being, not a machine.
Thaler's lawyer expressed concern that the ruling creates confusion about when AI-assisted art can be copyrighted.

Court rules copyrighting AI-generated art is a no-go - even if you invented the software - SiliconANGLE

Key takeaways

Discussion (0)