'AI-created art can't be copyrighted': US court dismisses AI entrepreneur's plea

A US federal judge has affirmed that artwork generated by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be granted copyright protection. The ruling, issued on Friday, dismissed a lawsuit by AI entrepreneur Stephen Thaler against the US Copyright Office. US District Judge Beryl Howell, in her decision rejecting Thaler’s legal challenge, emphasized that “human authorship” is a fundamental prerequisite for legal protection under copyright law. She emphasized that this principle lies at the heart of copyright eligibility, regardless of whether human creativity is harnessed through novel tools or emerging media. While acknowledging the adaptability of copyright law over time, Judge Howell highlighted that its scope has never extended so far as to safeguard creative works originating solely from technology without any human influence. Thaler, the founder of neural network firm Imagination Engines, initiated the lawsuit after the Copyright Office declined his 2018 application to secure copyright for artwork “created” by his AI system, known as the Creativity Machine. The submitted work, titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” was described as “autonomously generated by a computer algorithm operating on a machine.” Although Thaler had positioned himself as the copyright owner in his application, reflecting a “work for hire” scenario, the Copyright Office rejected his request. The office argued that the crucial connection between human cognition and creative expression was central to the concept of copyright protection. Thaler contested this decision, contending that AI should be considered an author when it satisfies authorship criteria, with the AI system’s owner assuming copyright ownership. He asserted that the office’s denial was unjust, arbitrary, and a breach of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Copyright Office had previously stated that AI-generated works were ineligible for copyright protection. However, in March, the office clarified its stance, indicating that content crafted with AI assistance might qualify for protection if a human had “selected or arranged” it in a manner demonstrating sufficient creativity, resulting in an original work of authorship. The involvement of AI in artistic creation has become a focal point in an ongoing Hollywood writers’ strike. More than 160,000 professionals from the film, radio, and television sectors have ceased work, leading to halts in major productions. Union leaders are engaged in negotiations with producers to ensure that AI cannot undermine wages or completely replace human workers. In January, a coalition of artists filed a lawsuit against the creators of AI art generators, including Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DreamUp. The artists characterized AI-generated art as a “parasite” that could inflict irreparable harm upon their community if allowed to proliferate. Their collective legal action alleged that these AI tools unlawfully utilized artists’ content for “training” purposes without consent or compensation, subsequently reaping substantial profits from the outcomes.