Accurate, Focused Research on Law, Technology and Knowledge Discovery Since 2002

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause

Hollywood Reporter: “More than 100 days into the writers strike, fears have kept mounting over the possibility of studios deploying generative artificial intelligence to completely pen scripts. But intellectual property law has long said that copyrights are only granted to works created by humans, and that doesn’t look like it’s changing anytime soon. A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.”

See also Kyle E. Mitchell – Exactly the Wrong AI Copyrightability Case. Creativity Machine guy assumed away the debate and lost Friday’s trial-court decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, case 22-1564 in the DC district court, epitomizes the sad fact that just the wrong situation can make bad headlines easy, well before the real work in a legal debate. I’m sure there will be links like “Court Rules AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted” aplenty. They will be wrong. The court didn’t rule that AI art can’t be copyrighted. It ruled that copyright requires human authorship, surprising approximately zero copyright lawyers…or people who have read the Wikipedia page.

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.