District Court Judge for the District Of Columbia Beryl A. Howell endorsed the United States Copyright Office’s decision to refuse copyright protection to the owner of an artificial intelligence system that generated visual art. Stephen Thaler owns a program called the “Creativity Machine,” but he was denied a copyright by the office for a piece of visual art his system created. It “lacked human authorship,” Howell decided, meaning that it lacked the “bedrock requirement of copyright.”
“[T]his case presents only the question of whether a work generated autonomously by a computer system is eligible for copyright,” Howell wrote. “In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No.”
Wait: the thing didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to create something. A human being was involved at some level. If a human enters the perimeters that an AI program follows and the result is unique art, isn’t that sufficient “human involvement”?
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is that ruling competent and fair?
My guess is that this is another (of many) examples of courts misunderstanding new technology, with rulings that will eventually look silly in the rear-view mirror.












