In a recent ruling, US Judge Beryl Howell affirmed the US Copyright Office’s stance that artworks entirely generated by AI lack copyright protection. This decision comes amid growing concerns about the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace human artists and writers.
Over 100 days after a writer strike, worries about AI’s role in scriptwriting were dispelled, as intellectual property law consistently upholds that copyright is granted only to works created by humans. The ruling was made in response to legal challenges by Stephen Thaler, regarding the government’s refusal to register AI-generated works.
Previously, Thaler, CEO of Imagination Engines, argued that AI should be recognized as an author when meeting authorship criteria. Judge Howell opposed this view, emphasizing that human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright. Copyright’s purpose is to incentivize individuals in creative activities; copyrights and patents protect various forms of intellectual property, promoting science and art by encouraging creative innovation.
Research shows that Judge Howell’s ruling comes as courts consider the legality of AI companies training their systems on copyrighted works. Several cases have been brought to federal courts in California, alleging copyright violations, potentially leading AI companies to abandon their language models.
Notably, before the recent official declaration in March 2023, the Copyright Office asserted that AI-generated works lack copyright, but AI-supported materials may be eligible for protection in certain cases. An AI-assisted creation can be eligible for copyright registration if a human has “selected or arranged” the work in a sufficiently creative manner.
This ruling shifts the discourse on AI and copyright. However, AI-generated art may lack copyright, while underscoring human creativity in intellectual property.