The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated art has been clarified with a recent court decision, solidifying the principle that works created solely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted. This ruling has significant implications for artists and creators who utilize AI tools.
The case involved Stephen Thaler, who sought to claim copyright for his AI-generated poetry. However, the court sided with the Copyright Office, asserting that copyright requires human authorship.
Judge Patricia Millett explained, “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 court emphasized that machines, lacking a lifespan and the capacity for transferring rights to family, cannot be granted copyright.
This ruling, as the U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly stated, underscores the fact that AI-generated works are not protected by copyright. The key factor, according to the Copyright Office, is the extent of human involvement in the creative process. Generative AI, which relies solely on text prompts, typically does not meet the criteria for copyright eligibility.
This means that anyone using AI tools for art creation may not own the copyright to their work. Others are free to use it without providing credit or compensation.
This legal stance could influence various artistic endeavors, with a question lingering: Will the law adapt to the increasingly widespread use of AI in creative fields? While change seems unlikely, the pressure from major entities like Hollywood studios could potentially prompt a shift. But for now, creators using AI-generated images should be aware that their creations can be freely used by others, without legal recourse.
