AI-created Artwork is Not Copyrightable

A recent ruling denies copyright protection for an AI-created piece of art. Would it pause the advancement in employing generative AI to replace human artists?

The rapidly advancing artificial technology has raised many questions for Hollywood professionals, in particular during the writers’ strike that has been going on since this May, and one of the concerns surrounds the possibility that AI becomes the sole creator of content. But if that is ever the case, can machines be authors protected by copyright laws? A recent ruling on the copyrightability of AI-generated works, or the lack of, may be a factor for studios as they consider how much artistic work can be distributed to AI.

The U.S. copyright law has traditionally maintained that only humans can be credited for creative works. This stance doesn't appear to be on the verge of technological change.

Last Friday, a pivotal decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell backed the U.S. Copyright Office's standpoint that AI-generated art cannot be protected under copyright law. Judge Howell emphasized, "Human authorship is a bedrock requirement." The verdict was reached in response to Stephen Thaler's challenge to the copyright office's refusal to register AI-created works. Thaler, the CEO of Imagination Engines, had earlier cited an AI system, named the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of an artwork. The Copyright Office, in response, highlighted the essential link between human cognition and creative expression as crucial for copyright protection.

This is not the first time when AI's role in creativity has stirred controversy. Various courts have consistently upheld the perspective that the essence of copyright rests on human originality. Judge Howell accentuated that while technology might offer tools for creation, the spark of ingenuity remains human. She considered AI's role similar to that of a camera: it captures a scene, but the real creativity lies in the human choices that determine its composition.

There are precedents that further support this viewpoint. A landmark case, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, stressed that copyright protections apply as long as the creation is rooted in the "original intellectual conceptions of the author", with the definition of authorship being explicitly human. Another notable case ruled that animals, like monkeys capturing photos, are outside the scope of copyright protection.

Judge Howell also delved into the primary purpose of copyright law: to motivate human creativity. This foundational concept seeks to spur innovation by granting individuals exclusive rights to their creations, corresponding to the core of American copyright's, which is supporting human creation and finding optimal ways to stimulate it. 

These rulings come amid a backdrop of legal battles where AI companies are under scrutiny for training their systems using copyrighted works. The suits and debates around the copyright of AI training data could largely impact, and even destroy, some tech companies’ language learning models. 

In a recent clarification, the copyright office did acknowledge that AI-assisted works might, in some contexts, be eligible for protection, with a required involvement of a significant human intervention in the form of selecting or arranging the content in a distinctively creative manner. It signifies that the U.S. legal framework continues to uphold the intrinsic value of human creativity.