A recent decision from a U.S. appeals court has ruled that artwork produced entirely by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection because it lacks human authorship.
The ruling was based on a case involving Stephen Thaler, who tried to secure copyrights for artwork created exclusively by his AI system, “Creativity Machine.” Thaler argued that because his AI independently produced the art, the works should still qualify for copyright protection. However, the court disagreed.
Circuit Judge Florence Pan stated clearly, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.” This straightforward declaration highlights that no matter how advanced or original AI-generated artwork may be, copyright protection in the U.S. still firmly requires a human creator.
This ruling carries significant implications as AI-generated images, music, and written content become increasingly common. Popular AI tools like DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion already produce strikingly creative outputs that many people use commercially. This court decision, however, underscores the importance of clear human involvement if creators want their AI-assisted works protected under copyright.
One area that remains uncertain is how much human input is necessary for copyright eligibility. Would simply instructing an AI or selecting among multiple outputs be considered sufficient? The ruling leaves room for ongoing debate and likely future cases.
As AI technologies continue evolving, legal definitions of creativity may need to adjust accordingly. Experts anticipate this won’t be the last discussion on this topic, especially as more AI-generated works flood the market.
For further details, you can read the complete article from Reuters here.
Quick Q&A:
Q1: Can AI-generated artwork be copyrighted?
No, according to the U.S. appeals court, artwork created entirely by AI without human creative involvement cannot receive copyright protection.
Q2: What was the court’s reason for rejecting Stephen Thaler’s claim?
The court rejected Thaler’s claim because copyright law requires human authorship, and his artwork was created independently by an AI system.
Do you think AI-assisted creativity deserves copyright protection? Share your views in the comments!
Stay updated on exciting AI topics—Sign up for our AI Newsletter.
