Artificial Intelligence has been the massive center of attention regarding patenting their works, but a US judge has deemed that AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted. This centers on the massive case presented by artists or content creators regarding AI-generated works which they push for copyrighting, with one particular case from Stephen Thaler taking this case to the courts.
Despite the case between Thaler and the US Copyright Office, the judge sided with the patenting authorities against AI copyrights, saying that without human works, it cannot be copyrighted.
AI-Generated Work Cannot be Copyrighted says US Judge
The case between plaintiff Stephen Taller and the US Copyright Office was brought to the courts, especially after the office denied the owner's request to copyright his work that was made by AI. In a memorandum opinion issued by District Court of Colombia Judge Beryl Howell, his work was not permitted to be copyrighted despite his move for a motion to summary judgment.
Judge Howell deemed that his work lacked human authorship and content, pointing out to the majority of his work centered on the AI generator tool doing it for him.
Thaler used a computer that he calls the "Creativity Machine" whose product was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine," but wants to seek ownership of this content.
With his work primarily done by the AI, it was rejected by both the US Copyright Office and the district court for intellectual property that would be given to him.
AI Copyright Would be Based on How Much AI Content?
The laws on AI copyrights are under review and are given much attention as to how much AI has done for the work, but are not entirely rejected by the US Copyright Office. Despite the massive restrictions and review, it is still open to copyrighting AI-generated content, provided that it was not made entirely by the AI for a person to call it their own.
AI Copyright and the Massive Case in the Patents
The prevalence of the many AI art generators from different companies like OpenAI's DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and more have been the center of various cases in applying for copyrights. One particular case was Kris Kashnatova's "Zarya of the Dawn" which mainly relied on Midjourney to create the art for its graphic novels.
It was initially given a copyright but upon revealing that it was made by AI, the office revoked their decision due to lack of disclosure from the artist.
Apart from AI-generated artwork, there are also alarming cases found online, particularly via e-commerce platforms like Amazon which has AI-generated books that were published and attributed to Jane Friedman, despite her not having anything to do with the literature.
AI is still on a shaky footing regarding regulators and copyright offices in the country, and this recent court order is only proof that artists that use this machine-generated content yet has a lot to go through for the copyrighting of their works.
For now, Judge Howell and the copyright office are closing the case on Thaler's appeal, but it does not exactly close the doors for these works to see intellectual property provisions but would be based on how much was used and declared.
