Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art; Ars Technica, September 22, 2023

TIMOTHY B. LEE, Ars Technica; Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art

"I don’t think these more recent decisions are going to age well.

“The copyright office's position follows fairly logically from what they've staked out,” Cornell University copyright scholar James Grimmelmann told me. “And that follows fairly logically from existing copyright doctrine or theory.”

At the same time, Grimmelmann said, “I don't see this approach being scalable. It seems like a quagmire.”"

Artist Who Duped Art Contest With AI Image Has Copyright Application Rejected; PetaPixel, September 7, 2023

MATT GROWCOOT , PetaPixel; Artist Who Duped Art Contest With AI Image Has Copyright Application Rejected

"An artist who rose to notoriety for winning first place in a fine art competition with an AI-generated imagehas had his application for protection rejected by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Jason Allen made headlines around the world last year when the Colorado State Fair awarded his AI-generated artwork, Theatre D’opera Spatial, first place in the digital art/digitally manipulated photography category of the Fine Art competition. Allen was unrepentant for his actions, saying “I’m not stopping now.” 

True to his word, he now wants Theatre D’opera Spatial to be afforded copyright protection, but, true to its word, the Copyright Office has rejected the application because the picture is not a product of human authorship."

Jason Allen’s AI art won the Colorado fair — but now the feds say it can’t get a copyright; Copyright Public Radio (CPR), September 6, 2023

 Andrew Kenney, Copyright Public Radio (CPR); Jason Allen’s AI art won the Colorado fair — but now the feds say it can’t get a copyright

"The image was striking enough to win part of the Colorado State Fair’s art contest last year. But the U.S. Copyright Office on Tuesday issued a final decision that it can not be copyrighted, meaning Allen can’t get legal protections to stop others from reproducing and using the image themselves."

Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms; Hollywood Reporter, August 22, 2023

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms

"Engineers build AI art generators by feeding AI systems, known as large language models, voluminous databases of images downloaded from the internet without licenses. The artists’ suit revolves around the argument that the practice of feeding these systems copyrighted works constitutes intellectual property theft. A finding of infringement in the case may upend how most AI systems are built in the absence of regulation placing guardrails around the industry. If the AI firms are found to have infringed on any copyrights, they may be forced to destroy datasets that have been trained on copyrighted works. They also face stiff penalties of up to $150,000 for each infringement.

AI companies maintain that their conduct is protected by fair use, which allows for the utilization of copyrighted works without permission as long as that use is transformative. The doctrine permits unlicensed use of copyrighted works under limited circumstances. The factors that determine whether a work qualifies include the purpose of the use, the degree of similarity, and the impact of the derivative work on the market for the original. Central to the artists’ case is winning the argument that the AI systems don’t create works of “transformative use,” defined as when the purpose of the copyrighted work is altered to create something with a new meaning or message."

As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim; The New York Times, August 21, 2023

 Zachary Small , The New York Times; As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim

"“Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a nonhuman,” Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in her decision on Friday, adding that “we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put A.I. in their toolbox.”

Similar rules about “human authorship” have been used in deciding who owned a monkey’s selfie."

Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art; Fast Company, June 30, 2023

JESUS DIAZ, Fast Company; Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art

"Well, there’s nothing to see here, folks. You don’t need any of the generative AI tools in our weekly roundup because they will produce stuff you don’t really own. At least that’s what the United States Copyright Office (USCO) says. The federal agency doubled down on its AI doctrine during a recent webinar, labeling anything produced by AI as “unclaimable material.”

In other words, anything that comes out of an AI program can’t be protected under copyright law and will not be accepted even if it’s included in a work created by a human. So those extra trees and mountains you added to your landscape photo with Photoshop Firefly beta? They are not yours, sorry.”

Robert Kasunic of the USCO says, “The Office will refuse to register works entirely generated by AI. Human authorship is a precondition to copyrightability.” But it’s more complicated than that. As Petapixel reports, USCO will register your images if they are modified with AI, but you will have to declare which parts are made using AI, making them “unclaimable, essentially discounting them” from the copyright protection. Kasunic went on to say that USCO believes that using any AI to generate content is akin to giving instructions to a commissioned artist.

How will USCO enforce this policy in a world where generative AI work is practically undetectable? It’s a question that only has one obvious answer: LOL."

A Scientist Has Filed Suit Against the U.S. Copyright Office, Arguing His A.I.-Generated Art Should Be Granted Protections; Artnet News, January 12, 2023

Min Chen, Artnet News; A Scientist Has Filed Suit Against the U.S. Copyright Office, Arguing His A.I.-Generated Art Should Be Granted Protections

"A computer scientist has filed suit against the U.S. Copyright Office, asking a Washington D.C. federal court to overturn the office’s refusal to grant copyright protection to an artwork created by an A.I. system he built.

The work at the center of the suit is titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was generated in 2012 by DABUS, an A.I. system developed by Stephen Thaler, the founder of Imagination Engines Incorporated, an advanced artificial neural network technology company.

In November 2018, Thaler applied to register the piece with the copyright office, listing DABUS as the author of the work and stating that it was “created autonomously by machine.” The office refused the application, responding, “We cannot register this work because it lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”"