US court dismisses copyright claim for AI-generated artwork

The US Court of Appeals this week affirmed a refusal to grant copyright registration for a visual artwork created solely by an artificial intelligence system. The court’s ruling, in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, emphasised that under the Copyright Act of 1976 only human beings can be recognised as authors of copyrighted works.

The case originated when Steven Thaler, creator of an AI known as the “Creativity Machine,” applied for copyright registration of an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which the system autonomously generated. In his application, Thaler identified the Creativity Machine as the sole author. However, the Copyright Office rejected this application, reasoning that “a human being did not create the work.”

Despite two attempts for reconsideration, where Thaler acknowledged the absence of traditional human authorship yet argued that this requirement was unconstitutional and unfounded, both requests were denied. He also proposed a work-for-hire interpretation, claiming authorship based on his interaction with the AI; the Copyright Office dismissed this on the grounds that no contractual relationship existed between Thaler and the Creativity Machine.

Thaler subsequently appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, reiterating his previous arguments. The district court upheld the refusal, underscoring the lack of human authorship and dismissing the work-for-hire argument, affirming that machine-generated works could not qualify for copyright protection because they do not meet the criteria for copyrightable interest.

The appeal to the Federal Circuit brought the matter before higher scrutiny. The Court invoked the Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to secure rights for authors and inventors. The court examined three primary principles of the Copyright Act: the preemption of state laws by federal ownership, the allowance for hiring third parties to create works, and the definition of protection that correlates to human life expectancy.

Throughout its analysis, the Federal Circuit upheld the view that human authorship is essential for copyright registration due to several statutory interpretations and historical practices of the Copyright Office, which has long maintained that an “author” must be a human. The Court highlighted that machines are explicitly referred to as tools and not authors in the language of the Copyright Act.

In countering Thaler’s arguments, the Court differentiated between works produced with the aid of AI and those generated entirely by machines, indicating that while human-AI collaborations could be copyrightable, wholly machine-created works could not be granted that status. The Court noted that despite advancements in technology, copyright law continues to primarily serve the public interest, which is essential for encouraging creativity and innovation.

Additionally, the Court chose not to address two other questions presented in the appeal – whether the U.S. Constitution mandates human authorship and whether Thaler could be considered the author – citing reasons of constitutional restraint and procedural waivers, respectively.

Source: Noah Wire Services