A recent argument before a DC Circuit panel has placed the question of copyright protection for AI-generated art at the forefront of legal discourse. The case, brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, hinged on whether his generative AI-created work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” could be granted copyright protection. Thaler, represented by Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, contended that current copyright laws do not explicitly preclude nonhuman authorship and drew a parallel to corporations owning copyrights.
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit judges expressed skepticism, particularly Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett, who found Thaler’s alternating theories confusing. Thaler’s initial theory argued that the machine was entirely responsible for the creation, while an alternate theory claimed he created the work with his machine, or as a work for hire. This discrepancy led Judge Wilkins to point out the lack of clarity in Thaler’s appeals briefing concerning the district court’s waiver findings.
This case is the first federal appeals court battle over the application of copyright law to AI-generated works, a matter that holds significant implications for creative industries in light of rapidly advancing AI technology. The complexities of such interpretations are underscored by the US Copyright Office’s earlier refusal to register Thaler’s AI-produced art, a decision later upheld by the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court’s verdict referenced precedent where courts similarly denied copyright protection for works devoid of human involvement, such as those created by celestial beings, cultivated gardens, and notably, a monkey selfie case.
The case, cataloged as Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, D.C. Cir., No. 23-5233, remains pivotal in defining the future boundary lines of copyright law in the era of AI. For further details on this unfolding legal debate, you can read the full article here.