Summary
- Federal judge rules artwork created by AI cannot be copyrighted as human authorship is essential to valid copyright claim, potentially impacting Hollywood studios’ ability to copyright AI-generated projects.
- Computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to copyright an image made by his AI model, Creativity Machine, was rejected by the Copyright Office.
- The ruling raises questions about the extent of human input required for AI-generated works to qualify as “authorship” and the future of copyright in incentivizing creative works involving AI.
As reported by Rolling Stone, a federal judge has now ruled that artwork made entirely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyright for the reason that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.” This decision could potentially work in favor of the ongoing WGA and SAG-AFTRA’s strikes, as the ruling affirms that Hollywood studios would not be able to copyright projects created using AI.
The new ruling was given by Judge Beryl Howell and was the result of computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to copyright an image he claimed was made by an AI model known as Creativity Machine. Thaler argued that as the owner of Creativity Machine he should be entitled to its copyright. The computer scientist sued after the Copyright Office rejected his application. The judge’s decision was in favor of the Copyright Office’s initial findings. Howell stated:
“The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was thus central to American copyright from its very inception. Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.”
Howell also noted:
“Underlying that adaptability, however, has been a consistent understanding that human creativity is the sine qua non at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media. Copyright has never stretched so far, however, as to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand, as plaintiff urges here. Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
RELATED: Hollywood Strike: What Happened the Last Time the Writers and Actors Went on Strike Together?
Judge Beryl Howell Said That “We Are Approaching New Frontiers in Copyright”
Deadline
Howell added that “we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works.”
The judge noted that this will “prompt challenging questions about how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an ‘author’ of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.” Still, according to Howell, this case was “not nearly so complex.”
In response to the ruling, Thaler’s lawyer, Ryan Abbott told the outlet, “We disagree with the District Court’s decision. In our view, copyright law is clear that the American public is the beneficiary of the law, and the public benefits when the generation and dissemination of works is encouraged, regardless of how the works are made. We do plan to appeal.”
As for the ongoing double strike, it’s worth noting that one of the reasons that SAG-AFTRA initiated their strike was due to the fact that AI is being used to mimic actor’s voices and likeness without the consent of the performer. Artificial intelligence has remained an issue in terms of negotiations between the studios and those on strike.
Previously, while speaking at a press conference (via The Verge), SAG-AFTRA’S chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland called out Hollywood studios proposal for using AI technology.
Crabtree-Ireland stated, “This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”
You can view the original article HERE.
