A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. has reaffirmed that artworks created solely by artificial intelligence without human involvement are not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law.
The case was brought by Stephen Thaler, who sought to register a copyright for an image produced by his AI system, DABUS. However, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, stating that only works with human authorship qualify for copyright protection. The federal court upheld this decision, emphasizing that existing copyright laws require human creativity and authorship to grant legal protection.
This ruling has significant implications for the rapidly growing field of generative AI in art. It clarifies that, under current U.S. law, AI-generated works cannot receive independent copyright protection unless they involve substantial human contribution.
The case has sparked debate among legal and artistic communities. Some argue that the law should adapt to reflect modern technological advancements, while others insist that maintaining human authorship is essential for preserving artistic integrity.
As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, the decision is expected to influence copyright policies globally, setting a precedent for how legal systems will handle AI-created art in the future.