US Judge Rules AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for Columbia affirmed the March ruling of the US Copyright Office, which denied copyright protection for artworks generated by AI, emphasizing the necessity of human authorship. This legal challenge was initiated by Stephen Thaler, who aimed to register an image produced by his AI system in 2018. Thaler contended that the human authorship stipulation imposed by the Copyright Office was unconstitutional. However, the court referenced an 1884 case involving photographer Napoleon Sarony and the Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company, reinforcing that human creativity is a prerequisite for copyright. The judge concurred that the Supreme Court's wording in that case excluded non-human entities from being considered authors.
Key facts
- Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted.
- The ruling upheld the US Copyright Office's March decision.
- Stephen Thaler applied for copyright protection in 2018 for an AI-generated image.
- The image depicted a train track under an ivy-clad bridge.
- Thaler coded the AI system himself.
- Thaler argued the human authorship requirement is unconstitutional.
- The court cited an 1884 case involving photographer Napoleon Sarony.
- The 1884 case established human creativity in photography as copyrightable.
Entities
Artists
- Stephen Thaler
- Napoleon Sarony
- Oscar Wilde
Institutions
- US District Court in Columbia
- US Copyright Office
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company
- Art News
Locations
- Columbia
- United States