A judgment is made that ``the work generated by AI has no room for copyright protection''
In a lawsuit over whether a work created by AI is protected by copyright, the plaintiff sought the copyright registration of the AI work, saying that ``the copyright claim requires that the author be a human being.'' made a judgment dismissing the complaint. Meanwhile, the judge in charge of the case also predicted that the emergence of generative AI will raise difficult issues in the future, such as the scope of protection when 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
This trial, which was judged on August 18, 2023, is a work generated by an AI system called 'Creativity Machine' by Steven Thaler, CEO of neural network company Imagination Engines. I appealed that the copyright of is supposed to be owned by AI, and by extension, by myself as the owner.
Below is 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise', which Mr. Thaler claims is 'spontaneously generated by a creative machine'.
Mr. Thaler applied for the copyright of this work to the authorities, but the authorities rejected the application , saying that copyright protection requires 'the connection between the human spirit and creative expression'.
In response, Mr. Thaler said, ``If you create a work such as literature, music, video, or software as part of your job, the copyright is not owned by the individual who created it, but by the employer or contractor who directed and supervised the creation. He claimed that he owns the copyright of the work generated by AI, citing the principle of work for hire, which states that he owns it.
And Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the copyright registration of AI works in this ruling, saying, ``It is a basic requirement of copyright that the author is a human being.'' supported the claims of the authorities.
Similar views have been expressed in past trials, and Judge Howell's ruling once again defends the previous judicial decision that copyright is not recognized for works generated by AI.
A ruling that ``AI is not recognized as an inventor'' comes down in the United States, while Australia ``recognises''-GIGAZINE
On the other hand, Judge Howell said, ``Artists are adopting AI as a tool when creating new video works, and there is no doubt that a new frontier in copyright is approaching. As the creativity of AI dwindles, how much human input will be required for users of AI tools to be credited as the authors of the generated work, how much protection will the output images have, and how much AI will be protected. There will be difficult questions such as how to evaluate if it may have been trained by existing works.'
Numerous lawsuits have already been filed over generated AI, and in some cases , copyrights have been recognized in the story and image placement in a graphic novel trial using AI-generated images, and the plaintiff has expressed welcome to the ruling. . In the field of software, there is also a class action lawsuit claiming that the provision of 'Copilot' learned from GitHub code is a copyright infringement.
Mr. Thaler's lawyer, Ryan Abbott, said, ``We respectfully disagree with the court's interpretation of copyright law,'' and indicated his intention to appeal the ruling.
Related Posts:
