In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Tuesday that works of art created by artificial intelligence without human involvement cannot be granted copyright protection under U.S. law. The decision rejects claims by AI inventor Stephen Thaler, whose system “DABUS” generated the artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise.
The court affirmed the U.S. Copyright Office’s stance, which had previously ruled that only works with human authors can be copyrighted. The ruling marks a significant step in addressing the growing intersection between intellectual property law and the rapidly advancing field of generative AI.
Thaler, a St. Charles, Missouri-based inventor, filed for a copyright for the image created by his AI system in 2018. However, the Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, citing that U.S. copyright law requires that creative works be authored by a human. Thaler’s legal team, led by attorney Ryan Abbott, has expressed strong disagreement with the ruling and plans to appeal, stating that the decision could stifle innovation in AI-driven creativity.
This ruling continues a series of challenges surrounding the role of AI in artistic creation. The Copyright Office had also previously rejected applications for copyrights on images generated using other AI tools, such as Midjourney, by artists who argued they should be entitled to copyright protection for works created with AI assistance. However, Thaler’s case stands apart because he argued that his AI system was fully autonomous in creating the work, devoid of any human input.
In its decision, the three-judge panel, led by U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, emphasized that human authorship is a “bedrock requirement” for copyright protection, reinforcing the centuries-old understanding of authorship embedded in copyright law. The court noted that many provisions of the Copyright Act only make sense when applied to human creators.
Thaler has claimed that the ruling threatens to “discourage investment and labor in a critically new and important developing field.” However, the Copyright Office has maintained that the court’s decision aligns with established legal precedent, ensuring that copyright protections are reserved for works created by human hands.
This ruling raises important questions about the evolving relationship between technology, creativity, and intellectual property rights. As the AI landscape continues to expand, legal experts and creators alike will be watching closely to see how future cases address the potential for AI-generated works in the world of copyright law.
Related topics:
