Skip to main content

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, ruled by US Federal Judge

Steven Thaler and/or Creativity Machine
Steven Thaler and/or Creativity Machine


Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court has ruled that artworks generated by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be granted copyright protection. This decision came as a response to a lawsuit brought against the US Copyright Office by Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright for an AI-generated image produced using his Creativity Machine algorithm.

Thaler attempted to secure copyright for the AI-generated artwork on behalf of the Creativity Machine, with the intention of being recognized as the owner and the machine as the creator. However, his requests were consistently denied by the Copyright Office.

Following the Copyright Office's final rejection, Thaler took legal action against the Office, arguing that its denial was unjust and not in line with legal standards. Nonetheless, Judge Howell disagreed with this perspective. In her verdict, she highlighted that copyright protection has historically been extended only to creations that bear the influence of human input and authorship. She emphasized that the concept of "human authorship" is an essential prerequisite for copyright eligibility.

Judge Howell cited previous cases to underscore this principle, including the famous example of a monkey selfie. In contrast, she referenced a case in which a woman compiled a book based on her interpretation of "dictated" words from a supernatural source. This case was deemed suitable for copyright protection due to the perceived human involvement.

However, Judge Howell acknowledged the evolving landscape of copyright as it intersects with AI technology. She recognized the emergence of new challenges posed by the use of AI as a creative tool, questioning the extent of human contribution necessary for AI-generated art to qualify for copyright. She observed that AI models often learn from existing works, further complicating the determination of copyright ownership and authorship.

Stephen Thaler expressed his intention to appeal the court's decision. His legal representative, Ryan Abbot of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, voiced disagreement with the court's interpretation of the Copyright Act. Concurrently, the US Copyright Office released a statement supporting the court's ruling.

The intersection of US copyright law and artificial intelligence remains an area of uncertainty, with various legal disputes emerging. Notably, Sarah Silverman and other authors initiated legal action against OpenAI and Meta over data scraping practices, and programmer-lawyer Matthew Butterick filed a lawsuit alleging software piracy due to data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI. The outcomes of these cases will play a role in shaping the legal landscape for AI-generated content.

Popular posts from this blog

Signal Introduces Usernames for Encrypted Messaging: A Secure Way to Connect

Signal, the encrypted messaging service, is launching a new feature in the coming weeks: support for usernames. This beta feature allows users to establish unique usernames, enabling connections without divulging phone numbers. source: Signal Blog To create a username, navigate to your settings and select "Profile." Once you've chosen a unique username, generate a QR code or link to share with others. Recipients can connect by entering your username into the chat bar. Usernames can be changed at any time, though previous usernames may be claimed by others. Signal began testing usernames last fall. Unlike social media platforms, Signal usernames do not serve as logins or public handles. They offer a discreet means of communication without revealing personal phone numbers. While a phone number is required to register for Signal, sharing it is optional. Usernames remain private and do not appear on profiles or in chats unless shared explicitly. As Randall Sarafa, Signal'

Safeguarding Internet Privacy: Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Protection of IP Addresses

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the significance of privacy rights concerning internet addresses. The court declared that police cannot simply obtain a suspect’s IP address without a court order, emphasizing the expectation of privacy that Canadian residents hold for such information. The court's decision stemmed from a case in 2017 involving Calgary police investigating fraudulent online activities at a liquor store. Initially, police demanded IP addresses from a credit card processor, which eventually led to obtaining subscriber information from Telus. This information was pivotal in making arrests and securing convictions in multiple offenses. Despite previous convictions, the accused contested the legality of obtaining IP addresses without proper authorization. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, asserted that IP addresses carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, necessitating judicial approval before access. The ruling emphasizes that obtaining jud

AT&T Resets Millions of Customer Passcodes After Data Leak: What You Need to Know

AT&T recently confirmed a significant data breach affecting over 7.6 million current customers and 65 million former customers. The leaked information, which dates back to 2019 or earlier, includes personal details like names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers. Fortunately, financial information and call history were not compromised. In response to the breach, AT&T has reset passcodes for affected customers. Passcodes, usually four-digit numbers, serve as an additional layer of security when accessing accounts. However, security experts warn that the encrypted passcodes leaked alongside customer information could be easily deciphered, posing a risk of unauthorized account access. Affected customers are advised to set up free fraud alerts with major credit bureaus and remain vigilant for any suspicious activity related to their accounts. AT&T is proactively reaching out to impacted customers via email or letter to inform them about the breach and the meas