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
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand