US Court Denies Copyright to AI-Generated Art, Sparks Legal Debate

Scientist Challenges Copyright Rejection for AI-Created Artwork, Controversy Ensues

In a groundbreaking decision, a US court has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI)-generated creations cannot be granted copyright protection. This landmark ruling marks the first legal precedent on the boundaries of copyright for AI-produced artworks, igniting widespread interest and discussion.

According to reports from Reuters and other sources on the 21st, Judge Beryl Howell of the Washington DC District Court issued a verdict on the 19th regarding the case of computer scientist Stephen Taller, who had sought copyright registration for an artwork generated by AI. The US Copyright Office had previously rejected Taller's application, asserting that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection. Judge Howell supported the Copyright Office's decision, stating that "copyright is only recognized for works made by humans."

Previously, Taller had applied for copyright registration for an artwork produced by his AI system called DABUS in 2018. The Copyright Office denied the application upon confirming that the creator was an AI, leading Taller to file a legal challenge on behalf of the AI.

In the court ruling, Judge Howell emphasized that the principle of "humans being the copyright holders" is a fundamental requirement that has evolved over centuries of consensus in copyright law. He stressed that creative works must involve human creativity in order to be eligible for copyright protection.

Judge Howell also noted, "Artists incorporating AI into their toolkits are opening up new horizons in copyright law. The question of how much human intervention and originality are involved in AI-generated works will pose challenging inquiries for determining copyright protection." He further explained, "However, this case is not as complex as it may seem."

The US Copyright Office welcomed the court's decision, believing it to be a correct judgment. Nevertheless, Taller argued that the notion of "humans as creators" is not a legal requirement and asserted, "Allowing AI's copyrights aligns with the advancement of science and useful arts as stated in the US Constitution, promoting progress." He announced his intention to appeal the court's ruling, expressing his refusal to accept it.