The federal appeals court ruled that art created autonomously by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted, as human authorship is required for a copyright. Computer scientist Stephen Thaler was denied a copyright for a painting created by his AI platform, the Creativity Machine. Thaler listed the machine as the sole author when submitting the application for registration, leading to the denial. Thaler argued that his AI machines are sentient and self-determining, but the court upheld the decision that human authorship is necessary for copyright. Thaler’s lawyer plans to appeal the ruling and raise important public policy issues surrounding AI-generated works and copyright protection. Thaler sued the U.S. Copyright Office after his application was rejected, but the court ultimately sided with the office’s requirement for human authorship. Despite the ruling, Thaler remains focused on protecting the intellectual property created by machines and preserving orphaned works. The court’s decision strengthened the Copyright Office’s position on human authorship for copyrights, emphasizing the importance of authors under the Copyright Act. The case highlighted the complex issues surrounding AI-generated works and their eligibility for copyright protection.
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image associated with the presented article. Due to copyright reasons, we are unable to use the original images. However, you can still enjoy the accurate and up-to-date content and information provided.
