United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled on Friday that artwork generated by artificial intelligence cannot be subject to copyright, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit against the US Copyright Office by Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright protection for an AI-generated image produced through the Creativity Machine algorithm he developed.
Thaler had made multiple attempts to secure copyright for the image by presenting it as a “work-for-hire” owned by the creator of the Creativity Machine, with himself listed as the owner of the artwork. However, his requests were consistently denied.
In response to Thaler’s legal action, Judge Howell found that copyright has historically been granted to works that have involved a human element in their creation. She emphasized the importance of human authorship as a fundamental requirement for copyright protection. Judge Howell cited past cases, including the famous monkey selfie case, to support her position. In contrast, she referenced a case in which a woman compiled a book based on “dictations” from a supernatural “voice,” deeming it worthy of copyright protection.
Related: US Senator Urges Big Tech To Label AI-Generated Content
While acknowledging the evolving landscape of copyright in relation to AI-generated work, Judge Howell recognized the emerging challenges presented by artists utilizing AI as a creative tool. She noted the impending need to address questions about the extent of human input required to qualify AI-generated art for copyright protection, given that AI models often draw from existing artistic works.
Stephen Thaler intends to appeal the court’s decision. His attorney, Ryan Abbot of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, expressed disagreement with the court’s interpretation of the Copyright Act. Bloomberg Law reported that the US Copyright Office supported the court’s decision, believing it to be the appropriate outcome.
Source: The Verge
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh