Bull Hedging
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Investing

Bull Hedging

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

Netflix stock is trading at all-time high levels...

May 4, 2025

Microsoft CEO Nadella forms new AI group to...

January 14, 2025

American Express to pay $230 million to settle...

January 18, 2025

Google says U.S. is facing a power capacity...

February 13, 2025

Amazon taps Xbox co-founder to lead new team...

May 31, 2025

Macy’s confirms rogue employee hid $151 million in...

December 12, 2024

Hasbro says it’s taking steps to offset China...

February 22, 2025

IRS plans to pay 1 million taxpayers up...

December 25, 2024

Albertsons sues Kroger after judge rules against grocery...

December 12, 2024

How crazy popcorn buckets became big business for...

February 20, 2025

Recent Posts

  • What Happens Next for the S&P 500? Pick Your Path!
  • Is It Time to Lower Our Market Expectations?
  • MAGA world erupts over Trump’s defense of Bondi amid Epstein files fallout
  • DOJ brass vowed full transparency on Epstein before turning up empty-handed
  • Biden defends controversial autopen use for mass clemency decisions in NYT interview: ‘A whole lot of people’

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

About Us

About Us

Design Magazine

Welcome to Design Magazine. Follow us for daily & updated design tips, guide and knowledge.

Stay Connect

Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Youtube Email

Recent Posts

  • What Happens Next for the S&P 500? Pick Your Path!

    July 14, 2025
  • Is It Time to Lower Our Market Expectations?

    July 14, 2025
  • MAGA world erupts over Trump’s defense of Bondi amid Epstein files fallout

    July 14, 2025
  • DOJ brass vowed full transparency on Epstein before turning up empty-handed

    July 14, 2025
  • Biden defends controversial autopen use for mass clemency decisions in NYT interview: ‘A whole lot of people’

    July 14, 2025
  • Inside the FAA’s race to train air traffic controllers: ‘It’s going to take time’

    July 14, 2025

Editors’ Picks

  • 1

    Small Caps are Set to Skyrocket in 2025—Here’s What You Need to Know

    December 12, 2024
  • 2

    Trump leaves China guessing what his next move is with unusual inauguration invitation

    December 15, 2024
  • 3

    Ad revenue should stabilize for media companies in 2025 — if they have sports

    December 31, 2024
  • 4

    Uranium Price Forecast: Top Trends That Will Affect Uranium in 2025

    December 19, 2024
  • 5

    Zinc Stocks: 4 Biggest Canadian Companies in 2025

    January 15, 2025
  • 6

    Lead Price Forecast: Top Trends for Lead in 2025

    January 11, 2025
  • 7

    Trudeau declares himself ‘proud feminist’ after lamenting Harris loss to Trump as setback for women

    December 13, 2024
Promotion Image

banner

Categories

  • Business (452)
  • Investing (1,549)
  • Politics (1,917)
  • Stocks (649)
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting

Disclaimer: bullhedging.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 bullhedging.com | All Rights Reserved