AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.

Over 100 days into the writers' strike, mounting concerns arise about studios using AI to write scripts. However, copyright law specifies human creation for protection, and this stance remains unchanged.

A federal judge recently affirmed a U.S. Copyright Office decision that AI-generated art lacks protection. The ruling rejected Stephen Thaler's challenge against the government's refusal to register AI-created works. Judge Beryl Howell noted that copyright law has never extended to safeguard works solely from technology without human input.

An AI advocate, Thaler, tried to secure copyright protection for AI-generated art, but the court ruled that copyright law is rooted in human authorship. The court emphasized that AI lacks the human touch central to copyright and rejected the notion that AI should be treated as an author.

The process of generating photographs involves human decisions regarding composition, subject placement, lighting, and more. This human involvement and creative control have been crucial factors leading courts to determine that these new types of works are eligible for copyright protection. This perspective is supported by precedent, such as the Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony case, where the Supreme Court emphasized that protection is granted to photographs when they embody original intellectual concepts of the author. In this context, the author is explicitly considered to be a human, and copyright is seen as the right of an individual to their intellectual creations.

The judge also examined the purpose of copyright law, highlighting its intent to incentivize human creativity. Copyrights and patents were created to protect forms of intellectual property, with the aim of encouraging individuals to create and invent for the benefit of society. The ruling emphasized that copyright law was never intended to cover non-human entities.

In March, the copyright office confirmed that most AI-generated works aren't eligible for copyright, but clarified that AI-assisted materials could be protected in specific cases. According to their guidelines, if a human creatively "selected or arranged" AI-generated content in a way that results in an original work of authorship, it can support a copyright claim.