AI-Created Art Can't Be Copyrighted, U.S. Court Rules
DreamStudio: A cyborg painting a self-portrait on an easel, positioned from behind
A recent U.S. court decision in Washington, D.C., has made it clear: if a piece of art is solely created by artificial intelligence without any human intervention, it cannot be copyrighted. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell emphasized that only works that have human authors are eligible for copyright protection. This verdict reaffirmed the Copyright Office's earlier decision to reject an application by computer scientist Stephen Thaler for his AI system, DABUS.
Interestingly, this isn't Thaler's first rodeo with the U.S. patent and copyright systems. He's been advocating for DABUS, which stands for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, stating it has the ability to independently create inventions. Thaler has faced multiple setbacks in the U.S. and has also been pursuing similar recognition for DABUS-created works in other countries with mixed results.
“Most AI tools like DALL-E, Jasper, Midjourney, etc require human interaction. This ruling is less about authenticity and more about economics.”
Ryan Abbott, Thaler's legal counsel, expressed their disagreement with the recent ruling and has intentions to appeal. Meanwhile, the Copyright Office is confident the court's decision was accurate.
With the rise of generative AI, new and unprecedented intellectual property challenges are emerging. The Copyright Office had previously denied copyright to an artist who claimed their AI system, Midjourney, played a role in their creative endeavor. Furthermore, several ongoing lawsuits are contesting the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train AI systems.
Judge Howell acknowledges the evolving landscape, stating, "We are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox." Yet, she also added that this particular case isn't as intricate as others might be.
Thaler's initial application in 2018 was for a DABUS-created visual art piece, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." Although the Copyright Office turned down the application, stating the necessity of human involvement for copyright, Thaler moved to challenge this in federal court. He argued that the U.S. constitution's take on copyrights, which is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," should evolve to include AI creations. However, Howell sided with the Copyright Office's stance, emphasizing the longstanding requirement of human authorship in copyright matters.