Skip to content

US Federal Judge Rules AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted

A landmark decision by US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell states that AI-generated artwork isn't eligible for copyright. What does this mean for AI creators and intellectual property rights?

AI-Created Art Not Eligible for Copyright

In a landmark decision that is sending shockwaves through the tech and art communities, US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted

Stephen Thaler, creator of the Creativity Machine algorithm, sought to copyright an AI-generated image as a work-for-hire, listing himself as the artwork's owner. His applications were repeatedly denied by the US Copyright Office, leading him to sue

Judge Howell stated that copyright has never been given to work created "absent any guiding human hand." Citing past cases like the infamous "monkey selfie," she emphasized that human involvement is crucial for valid copyright claims

However, the judge acknowledged that we're on the cusp of new frontiers in copyright as AI becomes an increasingly common tool for artists. This raises intricate questions about how much human input is needed to claim copyrights on AI-assisted creations.

Stephen Thaler plans to appeal, disagreeing with the court's interpretation of the Copyright Act. Meanwhile, other high-profile lawsuits against tech giants like OpenAI and Meta are underway, dealing with issues like data scraping practices.

As AI continues to permeate various sectors, its interaction with existing copyright laws creates a new legal landscape. This ruling has just scratched the surface of an issue that is bound to become more complex in the coming years.

So, what does this mean for creators, artists, and AI enthusiasts? The boundaries of intellectual property and technology continue to blur, leaving us with more questions than answers.