Thaler Appeals D.C. Court Decision Denying Copyright for AI-Generated Art; The Fashion Law, October 12, 2023

The Fashion Law; Thaler Appeals D.C. Court Decision Denying Copyright for AI-Generated Art

"A case over the availability of copyright protection for artificial intelligence-generated artwork is headed before a U.S. appeals court. In a notice lodged on Wednesday, Stephen Thaler alerted the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that he is appealing its August 18 decision, in which it held that an artwork created by AI is not eligible for copyright registration, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As first reported by TFL, Thaler – who sought to register the AI-generated artwork, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” with the Copyright Office – is appealing the D.C. court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Shira Perlmutter and the Copyright Office and its denial of his own summary judgment motion this summer...

The case is Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, et al., 1:22-cv-01564 (DDC)."

Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable; The Hollywood Reporter, August 23, 2023

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable

"But missing from the proposal, which was described as meeting the “priority concerns” of the guild, is how the studios need writers to exploit any work created by AI under existing copyright laws. That’s because works solely created by AI are not copyrightable. To be granted protection, a human would need to rewrite any AI-produced script...

By keeping AI on the table, the studios may be looking to capitalize on the intellectual property rights around works created by the tools. “If a human touches material created by generative AI, then the typical copyright protections will kick in,” a source close to the AMPTP says...

The studios may be looking toward producing of AI-generated scripts, but copyright protection is only possible for those works if they are revised by human writers. Material created solely by AI would enter the public domain upon release, potentially restricting opportunities for exploitation."

Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?; The Conversation, August 9, 2023

Dilan Thampapillai Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney , The Conversation; Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?

"In amending its laws, Australia legislated that parody or satire could form the basis of a fair dealing exception. A specific transformative use exception was not created. 

So, it is significantly less clear as to whether the use contemplated by Prosecraft or Shaxpir would be considered fair dealing in Australia. 

Australia has either missed a trick or dodged a bullet by failing to include transformative use as a fair dealing exception. It depends where you stand in the ongoing conflict between AI tech and human authors. But Australia’s laws are less AI-friendly than the US.

For the moment, published human authors are banking on the idea that if they can knock out the shadow library, they can hobble the reach of AI tech."

Even in the digital age, Only human-made works are copyrightable in the U.S.; March 21, 2022

 K&L Gates LLP - Susan Kayser and Kristin Wells , Lexology; Even in the digital age, Only human-made works are copyrightable in the U.S. 

"The U.S. Copyright Office Review Board refused copyright protection of a two-dimensional artwork created by artificial intelligence, stating that “[c]urrently, ‘the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,’” see recent letter. The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices does not explicitly address AI, but precedent, policy, and practice makes human authorship currently a prerequisite.

A “Creativity Machine,” authored the work titled “A Recent Entrance into Paradise.” The applicant, Steven Thaler, an advocate for AI IP rights, named himself as the copyright claimant. Thaler’s application included a unique transfer statement: “ownership of the machine,” and further explained that the work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” Thaler sought to register the work as a work-for-hire because he owns the Creativity Machine.

AI’s “kill switch” at the U.S. Copyright Office? AI isn’t human. The Review Board relied on the Office’s compendium of practices and Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1879—long before computers were a concept—to hold that the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.

The Review Board also denied Thaler’s argument that the work made for hire doctrine allows non-human persons like companies to be authors of copyrighted material. The Board explained that works made for hire must be prepared by “an employee” or by “parties” who “expressly agree in a written instrument” that the work is for hire.

Because Thaler did not claim any human involvement in the work, the Board did not address under which circumstances human involvement in machine-created works might meet the statutory requirements for copyright protection. This is an issue that may soon arise."

You can’t copyright AI-created art, according to US officials; Engadget; February 21, 2022

K. Holt, Engadget; You can’t copyright AI-created art, according to US officials

"The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to copyright a work of art that was created by an artificial intelligence system. Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright a piece of art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming in a second request for reconsideration of a 2019 ruling that the USCO's “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional.

In its latest ruling, which was spotted by The Verge, the agency accepted that the work was created by an AI, which Thaler calls the Creativity Machine. Thaler applied to register the work as "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”"

Should robot artists be given copyright protection?; Phys.org, June 26, 2017

Andres Guadamuz, Phys.org; Should robot artists be given copyright protection?

"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.

This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."