For years, Stephen Thaler has been battling legal systems in his quest to acquire patents and copyrights for works created by his Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Despite a series of failures, Thaler remains undeterred, continuing to pursue this unconventional litigation journey.
Recently, Thaler attempted to sue the Copyright Office and the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter. His lawsuit aimed to secure copyright for AI-created works. According to the documents, Judge Beryl Howell ruled against Thaler’s claim, asserting that AI-generated content does not qualify for copyright protection.
In the court’s interpretation, Thaler jumped the gun when he sought to assign rights over a computer-generated work to himself, the computer owner. However, before exploring this question, it is crucial to establish if there is merit to claim copyright in the first place. According to the ruling, this initial requirement was not met in Thaler’s case.
Our legal landscape has evolved to accommodate advancements in creativity and technology. However, granting copyright for works produced by AI, as Thaler suggested, is a step too far. The Copyright Act of 1976 explicitly states that the “author” who “fixes” the work in a tangible medium must be human, emphasizing the human authorship requirement.
This assertion draws parallels to a prior discussion encompassing the infamous monkey selfie case, reinforcing the notion that non-humans are not covered by copyright law — a principle seemingly logical and straightforward.
Despite the identified “challenges” that AI might present to copyright systems, as described by Judge Howell, those perceived difficulties are not for the courts to resolve. Therefore, all of Thaler’s arguments about assigning the copyright to himself are considered moot given the absence of copyright initially.
In the end, Thaler’s relentless pursuit adds another loss to his record, strengthening the notion that AI-created content is not eligible for copyright or patent protection.