Rare demonstration of common sense: The US Copyright Office says an AI can’t copyright its art
The US Copyright Office has rejected a request to let an AI copyright a work of art. Last week, a three-person board reviewed a 2019 ruling against Steven Thaler, who tried to copyright a picture on behalf of an algorithm he dubbed Creativity Machine. The board found that Thaler’s AI-created image didn’t include an element of “human authorship” — a necessary standard, it said, for protection.
Creativity Machine’s work, seen above, is named “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” It’s part of a series Thaler has described as a “simulated near-death experience” in which an algorithm reprocesses pictures to create hallucinatory images and a fictional narrative about the afterlife. Crucially, the AI is supposed to do this with extremely minimal human intervention, which has proven a dealbreaker for the Copyright Office.
“COURTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN FINDING THAT NON-HUMAN EXPRESSION IS INELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION”
The board’s decision calls “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” a vital element of copyright. As it notes, copyright law doesn’t directly outline rules for non-humans, but courts have taken a dim view of claims that animals or divine beings can take advantage of copyright protections. A 1997 decision says that a book of (supposed) divine revelations, for instance, could be protected if there was (again, supposedly) an element of human arrangement and curation. More recently, a court found that a monkey couldn’t sue for copyright infringement. “The courts have been consistent in finding that non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection,” the board says.
This doesn’t necessarily mean any art with an AI component is ineligible. Thaler emphasized that humans weren’t meaningfully involved because his goal was to prove that machine-created works could receive protection, not simply to stop people from infringing on the picture. (He’s unsuccessfully tried to establish that AIs can patent inventions in the US as well.) The board’s reasoning takes his explanation for granted. So if someone tried to copyright a similar work by arguing it was a product of their own creativity executed by a machine, the outcome might look different. A court could also reach an alternate conclusion on Thaler’s work if he follows his rejection with a lawsuit.
Even so, the Copyright Office is highlighting the importance of human agency in machine-produced works. As AI becomes a bigger part of artists’ repertoires, the limits of that conclusion could be tested for years to come.
“COURTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN FINDING THAT NON-HUMAN EXPRESSION IS INELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION”
The board’s decision calls “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” a vital element of copyright. As it notes, copyright law doesn’t directly outline rules for non-humans, but courts have taken a dim view of claims that animals or divine beings can take advantage of copyright protections. A 1997 decision says that a book of (supposed) divine revelations, for instance, could be protected if there was (again, supposedly) an element of human arrangement and curation. More recently, a court found that a monkey couldn’t sue for copyright infringement. “The courts have been consistent in finding that non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection,” the board says.
This doesn’t necessarily mean any art with an AI component is ineligible. Thaler emphasized that humans weren’t meaningfully involved because his goal was to prove that machine-created works could receive protection, not simply to stop people from infringing on the picture. (He’s unsuccessfully tried to establish that AIs can patent inventions in the US as well.) The board’s reasoning takes his explanation for granted. So if someone tried to copyright a similar work by arguing it was a product of their own creativity executed by a machine, the outcome might look different. A court could also reach an alternate conclusion on Thaler’s work if he follows his rejection with a lawsuit.
Even so, the Copyright Office is highlighting the importance of human agency in machine-produced works. As AI becomes a bigger part of artists’ repertoires, the limits of that conclusion could be tested for years to come.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
