The ruling states that 'works generated by AI cannot be protected by copyright'
In a court case over whether works created by AI are protected by copyright, the court ruled that a plaintiff's request to register a copyright for an AI work must be made by a human author in order for copyright to be asserted. However, the judge in the case also predicted that the emergence of generative AI will give rise to difficult issues in the future, such as the scope of protection when an AI is trained on works created by humans.
Artificial Intelligence Lawsuit: AI-Generated Art Not Copyrightable – The Hollywood Reporter
AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge - The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/23838458/ai-generated-art-no-copyright-district-court
The case, which was decided on August 18, 2023, involved Steven Saylor, CEO of neural network company Imagination Engines, who argued that the copyright to works generated by an AI system called the 'Creativity Machine' should belong to the AI and, by extension, to him, its owner.
Below is 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise,' a work that Thaler claims was 'spontaneously generated by a creative machine.'
Thaler applied for copyright on the work, but the authorities rejected the application, saying copyright protection requires a 'connection between the human spirit and creative expression.'
In response, Saylor cited the principle of works-for-hire rights, which states that 'when an individual creates a literary, musical, video, or software work as part of his or her job , the copyright belongs to the employer or contractor who directed and supervised the creation, not to the individual who created it,' and argued that he owned the copyright to the work generated by the AI.
In her ruling, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the claims of the authorities who had refused to register the AI work as a copyright owner, stating that 'human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright.'
Similar views have been expressed in previous cases, and Judge Howell's ruling reaffirms previous judicial decisions that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted.
The US rules that AI cannot be recognized as an inventor, while Australia rules that it can be recognized - GIGAZINE
However, Judge Howell also stated, 'There is no doubt that we are approaching a new frontier in copyright law as artists increasingly use AI as a tool to generate new visual and other works. As generated works contain less human creativity, difficult questions will arise, such as how much human input is necessary for users of AI tools to be recognized as authors of generated works, to what extent output images are protectable, and how to evaluate cases in which AI may have been trained on pre-existing works.'
There have already been numerous lawsuits filed over generative AI, including a case involving a graphic novel that used AI-generated images , in which the plaintiff welcomed the ruling, after the story and image placement were recognized as copyrighted. In the software field, a class action lawsuit has also been filed alleging that the provision of 'Copilot,' which learned from GitHub's code, is a copyright infringement.
Saylor's lawyer, Ryan Abbott, said, 'We respectfully disagree with the court's interpretation of copyright law,' and indicated his intention to appeal the ruling.
Continued
'AI-generated artworks cannot be protected by copyright,' US appeals court rules - GIGAZINE
Related Posts:
