Federal Judge Rules That AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable
A US federal judge upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.
A US Federal judge ruled that a piece of art created by AI is not open to copyright protection. The ruling was delivered in an order that turned down a bid challenging the government’s position in refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” US District Judge Beryl Howell said, stressing: “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”
In 2018, Stephen Thaler, CEO of Imagination Engines, applied for copyright protection for an AI-created piece of work called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The work was described as autonomously created by a computer algorithm. However, the Copyright Office rejected the application, stating that “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” is an important aspect of copyright protection.
Thaler, the copyright owner listed under the work-for-hire doctrine, filed a lawsuit challenging the denial and the office’s requirement for human authorship. However, Judge Howell dismissed his case: “In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No,” Howell wrote on her ruling. The judge also explored the purpose of copyright law, which she said is to encourage “human individuals to engage in” creation. Copyrights and patents, she said, were conceived as “forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent.”
The ruling continued: “The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was thus central to American copyright from its inception.”
The verdict will likely prompt Hollywood studios to reconsider using AI-generated content.
One of the main concerns that led to the strike among writers and actors is the fear that studios will replace human art with generative artificial intelligence.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Share:
Americans Spend Over 13 Hours a Day on Digital Media
Venice: How SAG-AFTRA Waivers Impact Indie Film SalesRelated Posts
A US federal judge upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.
A US Federal judge ruled that a piece of art created by AI is not open to copyright protection. The ruling was delivered in an order that turned down a bid challenging the government’s position in refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” US District Judge Beryl Howell said, stressing: “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”
In 2018, Stephen Thaler, CEO of Imagination Engines, applied for copyright protection for an AI-created piece of work called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The work was described as autonomously created by a computer algorithm. However, the Copyright Office rejected the application, stating that “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” is an important aspect of copyright protection.
Thaler, the copyright owner listed under the work-for-hire doctrine, filed a lawsuit challenging the denial and the office’s requirement for human authorship. However, Judge Howell dismissed his case: “In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No,” Howell wrote on her ruling. The judge also explored the purpose of copyright law, which she said is to encourage “human individuals to engage in” creation. Copyrights and patents, she said, were conceived as “forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent.”
The ruling continued: “The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was thus central to American copyright from its inception.”
The verdict will likely prompt Hollywood studios to reconsider using AI-generated content.
One of the main concerns that led to the strike among writers and actors is the fear that studios will replace human art with generative artificial intelligence.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Share:
Americans Spend Over 13 Hours a Day on Digital MediaVenice: How SAG-AFTRA Waivers Impact Indie Film Sales
