Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal District Court Denies Copyright to AI-Generated Art Piece
On Aug. 18, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia affirmed the U.S. Copyright Office's (Copyright Office or the Office) denial of a copyright application for a visual piece of art generated entirely by an artificial intelligence-driven computer called the "Creativity Machine." Thaler v. Perlnutter, No. 22-cv-1564, 2023 WL 5333236 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023). Recognizing that U.S. "copyright law protects only works of human creation," the court determined that the Copyright Office "acted properly in denying copyright registration for a work created absent any human involvement."
The court's ruling is consistent with, but did not defer to, or reference, the Office's March 16, 2023 Copyright Guidance published in the Federal Register entitled "Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence."(March Guidance). U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, "Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence," U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, "Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence," Statement of Policy, effective March 16, 2023, (https://bit.ly/40qgQuo). For a work to be copyrightable, per the March Guidance, "it must owe its origin to a human being." Furthermore, the Office "will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."
Where Human Authorship Is Lacking, No Valid Copyright Exists
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit, Steven Thaler, filed an application identifying the Creativity Machine as the author of the visual artwork entitled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." His application explains that the work was "autonomously created by computer algorithm." As the owner of the Creativity Machine, Thaler sought to obtain the copyright for himself, claiming it was computer- generated "work-for-hire." Thaler advanced several theories under which a copyright of the computer's work should transfer to him as its owner. He also raised the malleable nature of copyright law that covered works created with or involving new technologies.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.