The US Court of Appeals confirmed that works created solely by AI without human intervention are not eligible for copyright protection. Computer scientist Stephen Thaler challenged the US Copyright Office's decisions rejecting his applications for copyright over his AI-generated artwork, arguing that the distinction between human and machine creativity is increasingly blurred. However, the courts held that current copyright laws necessitate human authorship, maintaining that machine-generated creations lack the necessary human touch to qualify for copyright. This ruling underscores the ongoing debate surrounding intellectual property rights in the age of AI.
The court's decision confirms that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted without human authorship, reaffirming existing laws on intellectual property rights.
Thaler's lawsuit against the Copyright Office highlighted the challenges of distinguishing between human and machine-created works in copyright claims.
Collection
[
|
...
]