``There is no copyright in artistic works created by AI'', the US Copyright Office denies AI copyright

Advances in technology have led to the emergence

of AI that generates art and composes music . Regarding the issue of ``copyright of art generated by AI'', it has been learned that the American copyright authorities have determined that ``works created by AI are not copyrighted.''

2022.02.14 SIGNED Paradise (AI) Draft Review Board Letter
(PDF file) https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf

The US Copyright Office says an AI can't copyright its art - The Verge

On February 14, 2022, the United States Copyright Office announced that it had rejected an application to grant copyright to paintings generated by an algorithm named ``Creativity Machine.'' In the announcement, the agency stated that it had determined that 'AI-generated images do not contain elements of 'human copyright,' which is the necessary standard for them to be protected by copyright.' Masu.

The following is Creativity Machine's work ``A Recent Entrance to Paradise'' for which AI researcher Stephen Saylor sought copyright protection. This image is part of a series titled ``Simulation of Near-Death Experiences'' by Thaler, and is a work created by reprocessing a photograph using an algorithm. This is not to say that humans were not involved at all, including the original photo, but the fact that human intervention was kept to a minimum was the reason why it was determined that there was no element of human copyright. Being watched.

Not limited to this work, copyright protection authorities and courts believe that 'the connection between the human spirit and creative expression' is an important component of copyright, and copyright protection is not limited to works created by non-human entities. They have shown a reluctance to recognize their rights. For example, in a 1997 case in which the intellectual property rights of a new religion's scriptures, which were claimed to have been written by divine revelation, were at issue, the court held that ``Copyright law is not intended to protect Because the book is not the creation of a god-like being, a human creative element is required for the book to be copyrightable ( PDF file) .

In addition, in a court case where the copyright of selfies taken by wild monkeys was at issue, the American judicial authorities ruled that ``monkeys cannot own the copyright to photographs taken by monkeys by accident.'' Did.

The legal battle over the ``monkey selfie'' whose copyright was questioned finally comes to a complete conclusion - GIGAZINE

According to the IT news site The Verge, this ruling regarding AI paintings does not mean that all artworks involving AI are not protected by copyright. Therefore, if someone claims that someone else's work was ``generated by AI,'' the result may be different from this one. It is also possible that the Copyright Office would make a different decision if Mr. Thaler filed a lawsuit regarding another work.

The Verge added, ``The Copyright Office's decision emphasizes the importance of human agency in machine-generated works. However, in the future, AI will play a major role in artists' activities.'' 'If this is achieved, the limits of this conclusion will continue to be tested.'

In addition, Mr. Saylor previously tried to apply for AI as the inventor of a patent, but at that time, the patent registration failed because the United States Patent and Trademark Office ruled that ``only natural persons can be inventors.'' I am.

``AI cannot be registered as an inventor when applying for a patent,'' the US Patent and Trademark Office announces official opinion - GIGAZINE

in Software,   Art, Posted by log1l_ks