Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How D.C. Fed. Court Denied Copyright to AI-Created Artwork
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently upheld a final refusal by the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) to register a visual work entitled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." According to the application filed with the USCO by plaintiff Stephen Thaler, the image was not the product of human authorship but was instead "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine," which the plaintiff called the Creativity Machine and identified as the "author" of the work. The plaintiff named himself as the copyright claimant, however, on the basis that he was the "owner of the machine."
The USCO refused to register the work in August 2019 because it "lack[ed] the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim." This refusal was affirmed, on the same reasoning, through the internal appeals process within USCO. A final refusal by the Copyright Review Board on Feb. 14, 2022, led Thaler to file an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §706(2), claiming that the USCO's actions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law, unsupported by substantial evidence and in excess of [USCO's] statutory authority."
On cross-motions for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell upheld the refusal to register in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023). Under black-letter APA law, the district court's ruling was limited to the administrative record that was before the Copyright Office. The court thus rejected the plaintiff's belated efforts to introduce evidence of his own human involvement in the creative process. Such evidence was not present in the record and, in fact, contradicted Thaler's own claims that the work was "autonomously created" by the Creativity Machine.
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.