Why the Law Still Favors Human Creativity Over Machines
In a decision that could shape the future of artificial intelligence and creative rights, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has ruled that artwork created entirely by AI without human input does not qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S. Copyright Office’s decision to deny copyright protection to an image generated by “DABUS,” an artificial intelligence system developed by computer scientist Stephen Thaler. The court reaffirmed that, under current law, only works created by human authors can receive copyright protection.
A Landmark Ruling in AI and Copyright
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a growing debate over AI’s role in the creative world and the legal implications of generative AI tools. The ruling comes amid an increasing number of copyright applications for AI-generated works. In separate cases, the Copyright Office has also rejected applications from artists seeking copyright for images produced using Midjourney, an AI-powered art generation tool.
However, these cases differ from Thaler’s. The artists in the Midjourney cases argued that they played a creative role in shaping the final images produced by AI, whereas Thaler contended that his AI system was an independent, “sentient” creator deserving of copyright protection.
Thaler Plans to Appeal the Decision
Following the court’s ruling, Thaler’s attorney, Ryan Abbott, expressed strong disagreement with the decision and confirmed their intent to appeal. Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a statement supporting the ruling, stating that it aligns with existing copyright law.
Thaler, based in St. Charles, Missouri, had initially applied for copyright protection in 2018 for a visual artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which he claimed was entirely generated by DABUS. The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, citing the long-standing legal principle that copyright protections apply only to works with human authorship.
In 2023, a federal district court in Washington upheld the Copyright Office’s decision, with the presiding judge emphasizing that human creativity has always been a fundamental requirement for copyright protection, based on legal precedents spanning centuries. Thaler has argued that such rulings could discourage innovation and investment in AI-driven creative fields.
What the Ruling Means for AI Ethics and AI-Generated Art
In her written opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, speaking on behalf of the three-judge panel, made it clear that copyright law in the United States is built on the assumption that all creative works must have a human author.
“Because many of the Copyright Act’s provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration,” the ruling stated.
As AI-generated content continues to evolve, the legal system faces mounting questions about how to handle intellectual property rights in this rapidly advancing field. For now, this decision reinforces the idea that copyright protections remain exclusively tied to human creators, leaving AI-generated works without the same legal safeguards.
Image Courtesy – Devrimb/Getty Images
Contributor
