The Controversy of Copyright: U.S. Courts and AI-Created Art
The debate surrounding the potential of artificial intelligence to replace human endeavors has taken a new twist. As the writer's strike extends beyond 100 days, fears of studios resorting to generative AI to draft scripts are on the rise. Concurrently, a larger discussion about the copyright of AI-generated works is also intensifying.
U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell recently rendered a decision that AI-generated artworks cannot be copyrighted. This was in response to a lawsuit directed against the U.S. Copyright Office, who had previously denied copyright to Stephen Thaler for an image created by the Creativity Machine algorithm, a product of Thaler's invention. Thaler's repeated attempts to copyright the image, positioning it "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine," were rejected.
The heart of Thaler's lawsuit against the Office was his claim that its denial was "arbitrary, capricious... and not in accordance with the law.” However, Judge Howell's perspective differed, emphasizing that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." The ruling is reminiscent of a past case involving a notorious monkey selfie. Interestingly, Judge Howell contrasted this with another case where copyright was granted to a woman who compiled a book based on "words she believed were dictated to her" by a supernatural entity.
This contentious topic has been debated in courts before. Various court decisions have underscored the principle that copyrights are exclusively reserved for human creations, even if technology aids the process. Notably, the U.S. Copyright Office affirmed that while most AI-generated works are not copyrightable, certain AI-assisted materials could qualify for protection.
Judge Howell recognized the evolving landscape, where artists might increasingly leverage AI as a creative tool. This presents "challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary" for AI-created works to be copyrightable. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many AI models are trained on pre-existing works, sparking debates about intellectual property rights.
Stephen Thaler, undeterred by the recent ruling, plans to appeal the case. His attorney, Ryan Abbot, expressed their disagreement with the court's interpretation, although the U.S. Copyright Office stands by Judge Howell's decision. The legal maze around AI and copyright law in the U.S. is only beginning to unfold. Cases such as Sarah Silverman's lawsuit against OpenAI and Meta over data scraping, and Matthew Butterick's claim against Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI, alleging software piracy, highlight the complexities of the evolving relationship between AI and the law.
As the boundaries of AI and human creativity continue to blur, legal systems worldwide will have to grapple with the philosophical and legal ramifications of technology's ever-growing capabilities.
