The case of Thaler v. Perlmutter revolves around Stephen Thaler, a software developer who had previously been unsuccessful in obtaining patents for inventions created through his software platform, DARBUS. Thaler also owns the “Creativity Machine,” a computer system responsible for generating art.
Seeking copyright protection, Thaler applied for a copyright for the artwork, even though the computer program itself was credited as the creator. He argued that he should hold the copyright as the work was a “work-for-hire” for the Creativity Machine’s owner. Thaler asserted that the AI system autonomously generated the work, making it eligible for copyright protection. However, the Copyright Office contended that human authorship was lacking, a requirement for copyright claims.
These are the premises for the recent ruling issued by the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Beryl A. Howell emphasized the significant copyright and AI intersection issues in her memorandum opinion. She supported the Copyright Office’s original denial, stating, “United States copyright law protects only works of human creation“. Despite this, Justice Howell acknowledged that the term “author” isn’t specifically defined in the US Copyright Act. She indicated the possibility of future arguments that human creative input, when directing a GenAI, might qualify for copyright protection. As AI increasingly influences artistic creation, questions arise about the level of human involvement necessary to establish “author” status for AI-generated works. Challenges include evaluating AI-generated originality and using copyright law to foster AI-involved artistic production.
This marks a transformative phase in copyright, as AI becomes a tool for artists to produce new works. However, detachment of human creativity from the final product sparks inquiries about the extent of human input required for AI system users to be considered the “authors.” Further issues include defining protection for resultant images, assessing originality when AI learns from unknown pre-existing works, and optimizing copyright to incentivize AI-involved creativity.
The case’s implications for copyright and AI are substantial. As AI’s role grows in creating art, lawmakers and experts must grapple with these complex matters. The evolving landscape necessitates thoughtful exploration to keep laws effective and relevant. At present, the legal standpoint is that AI-generated works lack authorship. Authorship remains a human-exclusive property right, applicable only to humans or recognized entities like corporations and trusts. Nevertheless, future cases might attribute authorship to human-guided AI inputs instead of AI itself. Platforms hosting third-party content and entities interpreting copyright claims must adapt if these cases gain ground.
Header image created with Microsoft Bing. Prompt: “Thaler applied for a copyright for the artwork, even though the computer program itself was credited as the creator”.
