Our AI writing assistant, WriteUp, can assist you in easily writing any text. Click here to experience its capabilities.

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

View Original View Raw

Summary

In a ruling that could give Hollywood studios pause, a federal judge has upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. Stephen Thaler, chief executive of neural network firm Imagination Engines, had tried to challenge the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI. The ruling emphasized that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement” of copyright law, and that protection can only be extended to works that originate from a human’s “mental conception” and “original intellectual conceptions of the author.” The court also explored the purpose of copyright law, which is to incentivize individuals to create and invent. The Copyright Office clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances, such as when a human has “selected or arranged” the work in a “sufficiently creative way.”

Q&As

What is the ruling in the case of Stephen Thaler's AI-created artwork?
The ruling in the case of Stephen Thaler's AI-created artwork is that it is not open to protection.

What is the opinion of the U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on AI-created works?
The opinion of the U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on AI-created works is that human authorship is a bedrock requirement and copyright law has never stretched so far to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand.

What is the purpose of copyright law?
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage human individuals to engage in creation and to promote science and the useful arts by recognizing exclusive rights in that property.

What is the Copyright Office’s position on works made by AI?
The Copyright Office’s position on works made by AI is that the nexus between the human mind and creative expression is a crucial element of protection.

Are works generated solely by a computer protected by copyright law?
No, works generated solely by a computer are not protected by copyright law.

AI Comments

👍 This ruling is a great reminder that copyright law is designed to protect the works of human creativity and is adaptable to new technologies. It's reassuring to know that AI-created art is not copyrightable in order to encourage human individuals to engage in creation.

👎 This ruling is a major setback for AI companies who have trained their systems on copyrighted works. The decision that AI-created art is not copyrightable leaves artists and creators unprotected in their pursuit of copyright protection.

AI Discussion

Me: It's about AI-created art not being copyrightable, according to a judge's ruling. It could have implications for Hollywood studios if they try to use generative artificial intelligence to create scripts.

Friend: That's really interesting. What do you think the implications of this ruling are?

Me: Well, this ruling upholds the idea that works created by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. This could have major implications for the entertainment industry, since it means that any works created by AI are not subject to the same protections as works created by humans. It also means that any works created by AI could be used or copied without any compensation or legal repercussions. This could give studios pause in deciding whether to use AI for script writing.

Action items

Research the implications of this ruling for the entertainment industry and how it could affect the future of AI-created art.
Reach out to experts in the field of copyright law to gain a better understanding of the implications of this ruling.
Follow the progress of the copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies to see how they are resolved.

Technical terms

AI: Artificial Intelligence.
Generative AI: Artificial Intelligence that can create new content.
Copyright: A legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution.
Copyright Office: A federal agency responsible for registering copyrights and providing information about copyright law.
Work-for-Hire Doctrine: A legal doctrine that allows a person or company to be considered the author of a work, even if it was created by someone else.
Creativity Machine: An AI system created by Stephen Thaler.
Administrative Procedure Act: A federal law that provides for judicial review of agency actions.
Nexus: A connection or link between two or more things.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony: A Supreme Court case that established that copyright protection can be extended to photographs as long as they are representative of original intellectual conceptions of the author.
Monkey Selfie Case: A case in which a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection.
Summary Judgment: A judgment entered by a court without a full trial.