US Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Denying Copyright for AI-Generated Art

A federal appeals court has reaffirmed that works created solely by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be copyrighted, marking a significant legal stance on AI-generated content. According to Reuters, the decision on Tuesday represents the latest move by U.S. officials in addressing the copyright challenges posed by the rapidly advancing generative AI industry.

The case centered on Stephen Thaler, a Missouri-based AI researcher, who sought copyright protection for a piece of visual art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Thaler asserted that the work was independently created by his AI system, a claim that diverges from arguments made by other artists who have sought copyrights for AI-assisted creations. Per Reuters, the U.S. Copyright Office initially rejected Thaler’s application in 2022, emphasizing that copyright law requires human authorship.

Thaler’s legal battle continued when a federal district court in Washington upheld the Copyright Office’s decision in 2023. The court underscored that human authorship is a “bedrock requirement of copyright,” a principle grounded in long-standing legal tradition. In his appeal, Thaler contended that the ruling could stifle investment and innovation in AI-driven creative fields.

Read more: Spain Takes Bold Step in AI Regulation with New Bill on Deepfake Labeling

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that U.S. copyright law necessitates human authorship. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett explained that the Copyright Act’s provisions are structured around the assumption that an author is a human being. Per Reuters, the ruling concluded that AI-generated works cannot be granted copyright protection under current law.

Thaler’s attorney, Ryan Abbott, expressed strong disagreement with the decision, indicating that they intend to appeal further. Meanwhile, the Copyright Office maintained that the court arrived at the correct conclusion, reinforcing its stance that copyright law does not extend to AI-generated creations without human input.

Source: Reuters