Thaler's attorney, Professor Ryan Abbott, argued that the Copyright Act does not require a human author and that the work is deserving of registration because the AI 'did the thing one traditionally associates with authorship.' This highlights the emerging debate regarding the necessity of human authorship in an era where AI can generate original works that meet traditional criteria for copyright protection.
The graphic work itself is undeniably original and fixed in tangible form - key traditional elements for copyright protection. The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of authorship in light of technological advancements.
Judge Beryl Howell ruled against Dr. Thaler, emphasizing that the current copyright law mandates a human author. The case challenges existing legal frameworks, prompting consideration of how copyright laws apply to AI-driven creations.
In this case, there is a clear distinction between direct human-AI collaboration and the development of an AI system that independently creates artwork. This distinction plays a crucial role in the ongoing legal discussions surrounding AI-generated content.
Collection
[
|
...
]