Thaler's attempts to assert copyright claims for AI-generated creations were unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court upheld the Copyright Office's stance that current copyright laws necessitate human authorship for registration. This creates a clear interpretation of the law, emphasizing that while AI can assist in creation, it cannot be the sole author. The ruling indicates that though AI outputs may be copyrightable when a human curates the content, simple prompts are insufficient for copyright eligibility.
Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration.
In many circumstances [AI] outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part - where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
Collection
[
|
...
]