A federal judge in Washington, D.C., delivered a landmark ruling on Friday, stating that artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI) is not eligible for copyright protection due to its lack of “human involvement.” This ruling, which echoes a decision made by the United States Copyright Office in March, marks a significant legal development in the world of AI-generated art.
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia concurred with the US Copyright Office’s determination to deny copyright protection to an artwork produced by computer scientist Stephen Thaler using his AI system known as the “Creativity Machine.” In her decision, Judge Howell emphasized that courts have consistently declined to acknowledge copyright in works devoid of human contribution.
The case revolved around Thaler’s application for copyright protection for his AI-generated artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler, the founder of Imagination Engines, an artificial neural network technology company, contended that the artwork was autonomously created by an AI algorithm operating on a machine. However, the Copyright Office deemed this description inconsistent with the core principles of copyright law, which require that a work be the product of human creative thought.
The judge acknowledged the evolving landscape of copyright law in light of AI-generated art and the challenges it poses to defining the extent of human involvement required for copyright protection. She recognized that the proliferation of generative AI will raise complex questions regarding the eligibility of such artworks for copyright safeguards.
In her conclusion, Judge Howell highlighted that this case was relatively straightforward because Thaler himself stated in his copyright application that he had not directly participated in the creation of the artwork.
The emergence of AI-generative platforms like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney has intensified legal complexities surrounding appropriation art, a practice in which artists repurpose existing creations. These AI systems contribute to the mass creation of digital artworks, prompting legal quandaries reminiscent of those faced by artists like Richard Prince and Andy Warhol.
Thaler’s attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, expressed intentions to appeal the judge’s decision. Abbott contested the interpretation of the Copyright Act, emphasizing that according copyright protection to AI-generated works could inspire creativity and align with the underlying principles of copyright law.
The ruling sets an important precedent in the evolving landscape of AI-generated art and copyright law, signaling a need for further legal clarity as technology continues to redefine the boundaries of human creativity and artistic expression.