the United States Copyright Office (USCO) has again denied a copyright claim for an AI-generated artwork, the Edgeit’s Adi Robertson reported last month. A board of three people saw again a request of Stephane Thaler to reconsider the office’s 2019 decision, which concluded that its AI-created image “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”
Thaler first presented the image created by its “Creativity Machine” algorithm at USCO in November 2018, Eileen Kinsella reported for Artnet News. A recent entry into paradise part of a Thaler series describe as a “simulated near-death experience,” where an algorithm reuses images to create images seen by a dying synthetic brain. Thaler told USCO that he was “seeking to register this computer-generated work as work for hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”
Both in its 2019 decision and in its February decision, the USCO concluded that the “human authorship” element was lacking and was absolutely necessary to obtain a copyright, Commit’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law provides protections only to the “fruits of intellectual labor” that “are based on the creative powers of [human] spirit,” says the USCO. In its most recent appeal, Thaler argued that this “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional, but the USCO was unwilling to “deviate from a century of copyright case law. “.
Ryan AbbottThaler’s lawyer, says clean art News“We disagree with the Copyright Office’s decision and plan to appeal…AI is capable of producing functionally creative output in the absence of a traditional human author and the Protecting AI-generated works with copyright is essential to promote the production of socially valuable content, and providing this protection is required in current legal frameworks.
Abbott describes Thaler’s effort as “an academic project” created for the purpose of testing copyright standards. Thaler has already tested the limits of patent laws in many countries. the US Patent and Trademark Officethe UK Intellectual Property Office, and the European Patent Office have all rejected his claims for an AI called DABUS to be recognized as the inventor of two products. He appealed these decisions.
US copyright law does not explicitly define rules for non-humans, but case law has led courts to be “consistent in finding that non-human expression is not eligible for copyright protection. copyright,” the board said in its Feb. 14 ruling. The decision recalls previous lower court rulings, such as a 1997 decision who found that a book of purported divine revelations lacked an element of human arrangement and curation necessary for protection and a 2018 decision who concluded that a monkey could not sue for copyright infringement.
Other countries place less emphasis on the need for human authorship for protection. A judge in Australia ruled last year Inventions created by AI are eligible for patent protection. And South Africa allowed Thaler patent one of its products last year, noting that “the invention was autonomously generated by artificial intelligence.” While Thaler holds the patent, AI is listed as the inventor.