Rich People Trades
  • Business
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Business
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Investing

Rich People Trades

Business

Art created autonomously by AI can’t be copyrighted, federal appeals court rules

by admin March 21, 2025
March 21, 2025
Art created autonomously by AI can’t be copyrighted, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled that art created autonomously by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted, saying that at least initial human authorship is required for a copyright.

The ruling Tuesday upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office denying computer scientist Stephen Thaler a copyright for the painting “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”

The picture was created by Thaler’s AI platform, the “Creativity Machine.”

The “Copyright Office’s longstanding rule requiring a human author … does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in its unanimous ruling.

“The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being — the person who created, operated, or use artificial intelligence — and not the machine itself,” the panel said.

The panel noted that the Copyright Office “has allowed the registration of works made by human authors who use artificial intelligence.”

Copyright grants intellectual property protection to original works, giving their owners exclusive rights to reproduce the works, sell the works, rent them and display them.

Tuesday’s ruling hinged on the fact that Thaler listed the “Creativity Machine” as the sole “author” of “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” when he submitted a registration application to the Copyright Office in 2018.

Thaler listed himself as the picture’s owner in the application.

Thaler told CNBC in an interview that the Creativity Machine created the painting “on its own” in 2012.

The machine “learned cumulatively, and I was the parent, and I was basically tutoring it,” Thaler said.

“It actually generated [the painting] on its own as it mediated,” said Thaler.

He said his AI machines are “sentients” and “self-determining.”

Thaler’s lawyer, Ryan Abbott, told CNBC in an interview said, “We do strongly disagree with the appeals court decision and plan to appeal it.”

Abbott said he would first ask the full judicial lineup of the Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case. If that appeal is unsuccessful, Abbott could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issue.

The attorney said the case detailed “the first publicized rejection” by the Copyright Office “on the basis” of the claim that a work was created by AI.

That denial and the subsequent court rulings in the office’s favor, “creates a huge shadow on the creative community” he said, because “it’s not clear where the line is” delineating when a work created by or with the help of AI will be denied a copyright.

Despite the ruling, Abbott said he “was very pleased to see that the case has been successful in drawing public attention to these very important public policy issues.”

The Copyright Office first denied Thaler’s application in August 2019, saying, “We cannot register this work because it lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”

“According to your application this work was ’created autonomously by machine,” the office said at the time.

The office cited an 1884 ruling by the Supreme Court, which found that Congress had the right to extend copyright protection to a photograph, in that case one taken of the author Oscar Wilde.

The office later rejected two requests by Thaler for reconsideration of its decision.

After the second denial, in 2022, Thaler sued the office in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking to reverse the decision.

District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August 2023 ruled in favor of the Copyright Office, writing, “Defendants are correct that human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.”

“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright,” Howell wrote.

Thaler then appealed Howell’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals panel wrote, “This case presents a question made salient by recent advances in artificial intelligence: Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976?”

“The use of artificial intelligence to produce original work is rapidly increasing across industries and creative fields,” the decision noted.

“Who — or what — the ‘author’ of such work is a question that implicates important property rights undergirding growth and creative innovation.”

The ruling noted that Thaler had argued that the Copyright Office’s human authorship requirement “is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law.”

Thaler also “claimed that judicial opinions ‘from the Gilded Age’ could not settle the question of whether computer generated works are copyrightable today,” the ruling noted.

But the appeals panel said that “authors are at the center of the Copyright Act,” and that “traditional tools of statutory interpretation show that within the meaning of the Copyright Act, ‘author’ refers only to human beings.”

The panel said that the Copyright Office “formally adopted the human authorship requirement in 1973.”

That was six years after the office noted in its annual report to Congress that, “as computer technology develops and becomes more sophisticated, difficult questions of authorship are emerging.”

Abbott, the attorney who represented Thaler in the appeal, told CNBC that the Copyright Act “never says” that “you need a human author at all for a work … or a named author.”

Abbott noted that corporations are granted copyrights, as are authors who are anonymous or pseudonymous.

Protecting a ‘beautiful picture’

The Copyright Office, in a statement to CNBC, said it “believes the court reached the correct result, affirming the Office’s registration decision and confirming that human authorship is required for copyright.”

Thaler said that he will continue to pursue his bid for a copyright for the painting.

“My personal goal is not to preserve the feeling of machines,” Thaler said. “It’s more to preserve, how should I say, orphaned intellectual property.”

“A machine creates a beautiful picture? There should be some protection for it,” Thaler said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

previous post
How new professional sports leagues like SailGP are putting women at the fore
next post
Extension of Takeover Offer Period

Related Posts

United Airlines adds Thailand, Vietnam and Australia flights...

April 3, 2025

Fox reveals plans to launch subscription streaming service...

February 6, 2025

Cargo thieves are attacking the U.S. supply chain...

May 11, 2025

Amazon and Nvidia say AI data center demand...

April 25, 2025

Netflix shares soar as company reports surging revenue,...

January 23, 2025

First the token, now the swipe: NYC’s subway...

March 20, 2025

Trump could scale back Canada, Mexico tariffs Wednesday,...

March 6, 2025

Walmart is getting a bump from a surprising...

February 21, 2025

Trump commutes sentence of Ozy Media founder Carlos...

March 30, 2025

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says DOGE ‘needs...

February 26, 2025

    Join our mailing list to get access to special deals, promotions, and insider information. Your exclusive benefits await! Enjoy personalized recommendations, first dibs on sales, and members-only content that makes you feel like a true VIP. Sign up now and start saving!


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Editors’ Picks

    • 1

      First lady Melania Trump’s new official portrait revealed

      January 28, 2025
    • 2

      Health experts prep Dem lawmakers on anti-vaccine arguments ahead of RFK Jr’s confirmation hearings

      January 28, 2025
    • 3

      ECOWAS pledges to ‘keep door open’ after 3 coup-hit West African nations exit regional bloc

      January 30, 2025
    • 4

      Vale Launches Strategic Review of Thompson Nickel Operations Amid Market Challenges

      January 28, 2025
    • 5

      American fighters are dying in Ukraine in growing numbers. Bringing their bodies home is a complex task

      January 30, 2025
    • 6

      Scorched-earth Shanahan: RFK Jr’s former running mate threatens political war against confirmation opponents

      January 30, 2025
    • 7

      Coral bleaching on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef reaches ‘catastrophic’ levels, study finds

      January 23, 2025
    • About us
    • Contacts
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Email Whitelisting

    Disclaimer: richpeopletrades.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.


    Copyright © 2025 richpeopletrades.com | All Rights Reserved