Federal Appeals Court Rules AI-Created Art Cannot Be Copyrighted

A recent decision by a federal appeals court has established that art generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be copyrighted. The ruling emphasizes that at least one initial human author is necessary to secure copyright protection for any creative work.

The case that prompted this ruling involved computer scientist Stephen Thaler's application for copyright on a painting titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which was produced by his AI program known as the "Creativity Machine." In the court's decision, it upheld the U.S. Copyright Office's prior denial of Thaler's request for copyright registration.

The court's unanimous ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, stated that the Copyright Office's established guideline insists on human authorship. The panel clarified that this rule allows for the registration of works created with the assistance of AI, as long as a human is recognized as the author — meaning the individual who created, operated, or fed the AI, rather than the AI itself.

The ruling has implications for the copyrighting process by emphasizing that copyright grants protection for original works, conferring exclusive rights to their owners, such as rights to reproduce, sell, rent, and display the works.

Thaler's application was initially rejected after he identified the "Creativity Machine" as the sole author in his 2018 registration submission while listing himself as the owner. According to Thaler, the painting was independently made by the AI in 2012 after learning through his guidance. He described his AI as "self-determining" and claimed it produced the painting autonomously.

Following the court's ruling, Thaler's attorney, Ryan Abbott, expressed strong disagreement with the outcome and indicated plans to appeal. Abbott mentioned that if the full Circuit Court of Appeals declines to rehear the case, he might seek a review from the U.S. Supreme Court. He noted the case highlights a significant challenge facing the creative industry as it raises uncertainty surrounding the boundaries for copyright eligibility for works created by or with AI assistance.

Background of the Case

The conflict began when the Copyright Office denied Thaler's application in August 2019, citing the necessity of human authorship for a valid copyright claim. During the deliberations, the office referenced a Supreme Court ruling from 1884 that allowed Congress to extend copyright protection to photographs.

After multiple requests for reconsideration were denied, Thaler filed a lawsuit against the office in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In this instance, District Court Judge Beryl Howell sided with the Copyright Office, stating that human authorship is vital for a legitimate copyright claim.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reviewed the case, posing a pertinent question spurred by advances in AI: Can a machine be deemed an author under the Copyright Act of 1976? The panel acknowledged the growing utilization of AI to produce original works across various industries and addressed the fundamental issue of authorship concerning property rights that support innovation.

Thaler's arguments included claims against the constitutionality of the Copyright Office's requirement for human authorship. He contended that opinions from the Gilded Age could not adequately address the appropriateness of copyright protection for works generated by machines today. Nevertheless, the appeals panel affirmed that the concept of an “author” pertains solely to human beings within the context of the Copyright Act, which has maintained a human authorship requirement since its formal adoption in 1973.

Implications for the Future

Despite the ruling, Abbott highlighted a need for clarity in defining the limitations surrounding AI-generated art. He expressed appreciation for the attention the case has attracted to critical public policy issues regarding intellectual property. Thaler, on the other hand, remains intent on pursuing copyright protection for the painting, advocating for some level of protection for creations produced by machines.

Thaler stated, "My personal goal is not to preserve the feeling of machines. It’s to preserve, how should I say, orphaned intellectual property. A machine creates a beautiful picture? There should be some protection for it."

AI, Copyright, Law