Join Our Premium Waitlist

Artificial intelligence can whip up some pretty impressive art these days, but a US appeals court has just drawn a firm line: AI-generated art, without a human creator at the helm, can’t be copyrighted. The court in Washington, D.C., sided with the US Copyright Office, stating that only works with human authors are eligible for copyright protection under current law.

This decision comes after Stephen Thaler tried to copyright an image created by his AI system called DABUS. Thaler argued that DABUS, a “sentient” system, independently created the artwork. However, both the Copyright Office and now the appeals court disagreed. They emphasized that copyright law, as it stands, is built on the foundation of human creativity.

“Copyright law is designed to protect human creations,” the court stated in its ruling. Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the panel, pointed out that the very language of the Copyright Act implies a human author. This isn’t just about AI art; the Copyright Office has also rejected copyright claims for images made with AI tools like Midjourney when the human input is deemed too minimal.

Thaler’s attorney expressed strong disagreement with the ruling and indicated plans to appeal. Meanwhile, the Copyright Office welcomed the decision, stating it “believes the court reached the correct result.” This ruling highlights the ongoing legal wrestling match as technology outpaces existing laws, and the question of how to protect, or not protect, AI-generated creations remains a hot topic.