Much of the talk in the ongoing writers’ strikes has been over concerns about the potential deployment of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create screenplays. Now, it appears that intellectual property law is standing firm in its stance that copyrights are only granted to works produced by humans, as demonstrated by a recent federal court ruling.
On Friday, a U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell upheld a determination from the U.S. Copyright Office, asserting that pieces of art generated by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. The ruling came as part of a case involving Stephen Thaler’s challenge to the government’s refusal to register AI-generated works. Judge Howell’s ruling emphasized that copyright law has never extended to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand.”
The ruling highlights the importance of human authorship as a foundational requirement for copyright protection. According to Judge Howell, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”
The movement to secure protection for works created by AI was spearheaded by Thaler, the CEO of neural network firm Imagination Engines. Thaler sought copyright protection for an artwork named “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was credited to an AI system he developed called the Creativity Machine. However, the Copyright Office rejected the application, citing the indispensable connection between the human mind and creative expression as a pivotal element of protection.
Thaler, who claimed ownership of the copyright based on the work-for-hire doctrine, filed a lawsuit contesting the office’s denial and the requirement of human authorship. He argued that AI should be recognized as an author under specific criteria, with ownership resting in the hands of the machine’s owner. His lawsuit challenged the Copyright Office’s decision as arbitrary and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Howell’s ruling made it unequivocally clear that copyright law protects only works created by humans. She emphasized that copyright law has always centered around human creativity and is designed to evolve with the times.
She compared AI-generated works to photography, highlighting that while cameras can mechanically reproduce scenes, the essence of the photo’s creation involves a human’s “mental conception” through decisions like subject placement, lighting, and arrangement. Thus, human involvement and creative control remain essential for copyright protection.
Judge Howell cited legal precedents that uphold the requirement of human authorship for copyright protection. She noted that copyright law aims to encourage human individuals to engage in creation and was not designed to extend to nonhuman entities.
This ruling arrives at a time when courts are grappling with the legality of AI companies using copyrighted works to train their systems. The outcome of these cases could have implications for the copyright status of AI-generated content and the responsibilities of AI firms regarding copyrighted material.
In March, the U.S. Copyright Office clarified that while most AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection, AI-assisted materials may qualify for protection if a human’s creative input is evident in the resulting work.
REELated:
As the writers’ strike continues and the role of AI in creative industries evolves, legal and ethical discussions around copyright and AI-generated content remain at the forefront of the conversation.
For Reel 360 News’ full strike coverage, click here.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram
