In a landmark decision that could have significant implications for the future of artificial intelligence (AI), United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell declared on Friday that AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright. The ruling, shedding light on the complexities and ambiguities surrounding ownership in the realm of AI creations, was in response to Stephen Thaler’s legal feud with the US Copyright Office. Thaler, the creator of an AI algorithm named the Creativity Machine, sought copyright protection for an image produced by his AI system.
Fueled by a desire for acknowledgment for his AI’s creative output, Thaler made countless attempts to copyright the image as a work-for-hire attributed to the Creativity Machine. Under his proposition, the AI system would stand as the author while Thaler assumes the role of the artwork’s owner. Notwithstanding his justifications, the Office dismissed Thaler’s requests, a decision he rebutted as being “arbitrary, capricious … and not in accordance with the law.”
Judge Howell, however, took a firm stance against the copyright eligibility of AI outputs. In her ruling, she maintains that human authorship remains an indispensable prerequisite for a copyright. In other words, the judge firmly affirms that the rights associated with creative works have never been extended to productions “absent any guiding human hand.”
But while speaking from the throne of law, Judge Howell expresses the awareness of an incoming age—where artists employ AI tools to generate new content—and the complex questions it will prompt on the minimum human input needed to copyright such AI-produced art. This is a nod toward the AI models’ standard practice of training on pre-existing works.
AI and copyright law have engaged in a turbulent dance recently, with the courtroom witnessing a surge in related lawsuits. High-profile figures like Sarah Silverman and two other authors levelled suits against Meta and OpenAI concerning their models’ data scraping practices. Similarly, lawyer Matthew Butterick instituted legal proceedings against Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI, accusing them of software piracy.
Judge Howell’s decision also indicated echoes of previous cases. She cited the famed ‘monkey selfie’ case, where an ape’s photo was denied copyright. Conversely, copyright was granted in another case where a woman organized a book based on notebooks filled with words that she claimed were conveyed by a celestial voice.
Despite Judge Howell’s detailed justification, Stephen Thaler, through his attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, announced plans to appeal the case. Abbott revealed their dissatisfaction with the Judge’s ruling, stating, “We respectfully disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Copyright Act,” as quoted by Bloomberg Law. The US Copyright Office, however, agreed with the court’s decision, endorsing it as the correct interpretation.
Attempting to navigate the uncharted territory of AI and copyright, this latest court ruling suggests that the burgeoning overlap between AI-generated content and copyright law is far from a closed chapter. As the law grapples with the swift current of technological advances, it seems that human creativity – at least for now – will maintain its unique, irreplaceable position in the realm of copyright.
