Judge Rules AI-Created Art Not Copyrightable (1)

Legal Ruling on AI-Created Art

• A U.S. federal judge upheld a decision from the U.S. Copyright Office that art created by AI is not copyrightable.

• The judge was ruling on a case brought by Stephen Thaler, the CEO of neural network firm Imagination Engines.

• Thaler listed his AI system, the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of an artwork called "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."

Arguments and Counterarguments

• Thaler argued that AI should be recognized as an author if it meets the criteria for authorship, with ownership going to the machine's owner.

• The Copyright Office denied the application, stating that human creativity is a crucial element for copyright protection.

• Thaler's lawsuit challenged this denial and the human authorship requirement, claiming the refusal was "arbitrary" and "not in accordance with the law."

Court’s Reasoning

• The judge stated that U.S. copyright law has always been designed to protect works of human creation only.

This is the key distinction. Copyright is for humans humans only. If a bear created a logo in some sand, he could not file for copyright. The issue will become: how much do humans need to change a work for it to become a humans work.

• The ruling emphasized that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement" for copyright.

• Courts have consistently held that works must originate with humans for copyright protection.

Implications for AI and Copyright

• The ruling comes as courts are considering the legality of AI companies training their systems on copyrighted works.

• The Copyright Office had clarified in March that most works generated by AI aren't copyrightable but AI-assisted works may qualify in certain instances.

• The judge’s order said copyright law aims to incentivize human individuals to create and was not designed to include non-human actors.