Over 100 days into the writers’ strike, there’s been growing concern about the potential use of advanced AI to script movies and shows. However, U.S. intellectual property laws have traditionally held that only human-created works can be copyrighted, and recent rulings have affirmed this stance.
Last Friday, a decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell reinforced the standing notion that copyrights are reserved for works produced by humans.
The judge upheld the U.S. Copyright Office’s decision that a piece of art developed by an AI can’t receive copyright protection. As Judge Howell put it, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”
Stephen Thaler, CEO of neural network company Imagination Engines, has been at the forefront of pushing for AI creations to receive copyright protection. In a notable case, he listed his AI system, the Creativity Machine, as the sole artist behind a work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, emphasizing it was “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.”
The Copyright Office denied the request, stressing that the connection between human intellect and creative output is vital for protection.
RELATED: Warning: AI Could Soon Be Issuing You Parking Tickets if Multi-City Pilot Program Proves Successful
Thaler, under the work-for-hire doctrine, placed himself as the copyright’s owner and legally contested the denial. He believed AI should be recognized as an author when it fits the criteria, and that the machine’s owner should maintain the rights.
His challenge posited that the refusal was not in alignment with the Administrative Procedure Act. The core issue was whether a solely computer-generated work could fall under copyright law.
Judge Howell articulated, “In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No.”
This isn’t the first time the topic of non-human creativity has surfaced. Several courts have come to similar conclusions. A historic Supreme Court case, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, determined that photographs could be protected, but the creativity behind them needed to originate from the human mind.
Additionally, a federal appeals court decided that a photograph taken by a monkey couldn’t be copyrighted.
Judge Howell delved into the intent of copyright laws, highlighting their purpose to motivate “human individuals to engage in” creative endeavors. Copyrights have always been viewed as a means to foster innovation by offering exclusive rights, thereby promoting progress. Howell emphasized, “The act of human creation… was thus central to American copyright from its very inception.”
This debate comes amid other legal battles questioning the ethics of AI firms using copyrighted material to train their systems. Some artists in California are alleging copyright infringements, which could potentially force companies to dismantle their expansive AI models.
In a recent statement, the copyright office clarified that while most AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable, those assisted by AI could be, given human involvement in a “sufficiently creative way.” Time will tell what is deemed “sufficient”.
The impact of this ruling is far and wide for companies intending to use AI for design whether it is word or visual. Without copyright protection, AI creation is up for grabs. It certainly puts positive weight into continuing with human employees in many aspects of business.
RELATED: New Innovation Will Change the Agriculture Industry: AI-Driven Flying Robots Pick Fruit from Trees
