Summary

Facts

The plaintiff in the case, Mr. Stephen Thaler, developed a computer system which he has dubbed the ‘Creativity Machine’ and which he claimed had generated a piece of virtual art on its own accord. He sought to register the work for copyright protection with the US Copyright Office, listing the computer system as the author in the application but arguing that the copyright should be transferred to him “as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine”. The US Copyright Office denied the application on the basis that the work “lack[ed] the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim”, remarking that copyright may only be granted to works created by human beings. Mr. Thaler subsequently made two requests for reconsideration of his application, both of which were denied in accordance with the original rationale, i.e. that copyright protection does not extend to the creations of non-human entities. He saw no other option than to challenge the US Copyright Office’s decision in court.

What the Court ruled

In reviewing Mr. Thaler’s position, the judge determined that “the single legal question presented here is whether a work generated autonomously by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law upon its creation”. In that regard, the Court noted that “[there] has been a consistent understanding that human creativity is the sine qua non at the core of copyrightability […]” and that “human authorship is the bedrock requirement of copyright”. Since the application submitted to the US Copyright Office presented Mr. Thaler as playing no role in using the AI to generate the work (“it was autonomously generated by an AI”), it suggested that there had been no human involvement in the creation of the work. In the Court’s view, the answer to the question is therefore negative, affirming the decision of the US Copyright Office.

Significance

Decisions like Thaler v. Perlmutter et al. make it less likely that works created solely by generative AI will receive copyright protection in the United States. However, the ruling leaves unresolved the important question of the degree of human involvement necessary to qualify an AI-generated work for copyright protection. US Congress may see this as an opportunity to take legislative initiative and determine what a sufficient amount of original authorship looks like. We will continue to monitor the situation and issue reports on important developments that may occur in regard to copyright and AI.

More recently, the US Copyright Office issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The Office is undertaking a study of the copyright law and policy issues raised by generative AI and is assessing whether legislative or regulatory steps are warranted. The Office will use the record it assembles to advise US Congress; inform its regulatory work; and offer information and resources to the public, courts, and other government entities considering these issues.

See also our earlier post on this topic: https://data-en-maatschappij.a...