No copyright for AI-generated art, US judge rules
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

No copyright for AI-generated art, US judge rules

ai-image.jpg

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork created by one of his artificial intelligence programs

Artificial intelligence-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection, a US federal court ruled on Friday, August 18.

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler was appealing against the US Copyright Office’s refusal to register an image created by one of his inventions, an AI tool called the Creativity Machine.

In Friday’s judgment, the US District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the copyright registrar’s finding that human authorship is essential to a valid copyright claim.

The work in question was a visual image called 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise'. Thaler claimed the work had been created autonomously by the Creativity Machine with no human involvement.

Thaler and his legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, a law professor at the University of Surrey in the UK, have continuously argued that patent and copyright protection should be granted to AI-generated works and inventions.

So far, US courts and the USPTO have found that intellectual property rights should only be granted for works created by humans.

District Judge Beryl Howell took the same view in the latest case.

She also rejected Thaler’s arguments that the ownership of the registration for the AI-generated work, which would normally be granted to the author, should pass to him as the owner of the machine.

“These arguments concern to whom a valid copyright should have been registered, and in so doing put the cart before the horse.

“By denying registration, the [Copyright Office] concluded that no valid copyright had ever existed in a work generated absent human involvement, leaving nothing at all to register and thus no question as to whom that registration belonged,” Howell wrote.

Abbott confirmed on LinkedIn that Thaler’s team plans to appeal the judgment.

Thaler’s efforts to secure copyright registration are the latest evolution in a long-running campaign to reform IP laws around AI-generated works and inventions.

An appeal to name DABUS, one of Thaler’s other AI programs, as the inventor on two patent applications is pending at the UK Supreme Court. It heard the case in March.

The DABUS campaign has generated a series of high-profile appeals, including to the US Supreme Court, which rejected Thaler’s case.

So far, DABUS has only managed to be named as an inventor in South Africa, where the country’s IP office does not carry out substantive examination.

Appeals are currently pending at multiple other venues, including at Germany’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article