The ongoing debate over whether or not works created by artificial intelligence (AI) are eligible for copyright protection has recently seen the U.S. Copyright Office weighing in on the issue. The Copyright Office has strongly urged the D.C. Circuit to reject the claim put forth by an AI inventor that creations of AI systems should have copyright protection. The predominant argument put forth is the historical evidence of copyright protection being extended exclusively to human authors.
In its response brief to AI inventor Stephen Thaler’s appeal, the Copyright Office brought forth the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, since the 19th century has acknowledged human creativity as the cornerstone of authorship. The office emphasized that the text of the Copyright Act displays Congress’ intent to protect works created by humans. Copyrights’ duration is measured by the author’s lifespan and several sections make reference to an author’s family or heirs. This, the office contends, implies the humanity of the author and would not make sense if applied to a machine.
This particular case comes in at a significant time of disputes surrounding intellectual property rights of AI-produced art. As the AI technology expands and becomes more common, it’s usage in creating visually intriguing works is challenging the previous premises on copyright registration.
Dr. Stephen Thaler, on his part, argued that the copyright office is basing its views on older cases that did not take into consideration the possibility of AI being capable of generating copyrightable works. Thaler refuted the office’s stance by stating that the act does indeed allow for nonhuman authors, offering corporations registering copyrights as an instance of such.
The appeal brought forth by Thaler is significant as it forces a re-evaluation of the traditional understanding of authorship and creativity in the context of copyright laws. The varying perspectives on the matter underline a key area of legal ambiguity as we see increased AI involvement in creative processes. Further developments in this case are awaited as it potentially sets precedent in the legal treatment of AI-generated works.