Background
In 2019, a Missouri computer scientist, Stephen Thaler, sought to register a piece of art that an AI model produced. The US Copyright Office rejected the application, ruling that works lacking human authorship cannot be protected. Thaler appealed, and the 5th Circuit upheld the decision.
Court Decision
On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would not hear the case, effectively leaving the lower‑court ruling in place. This means that, for now, AI‑generated artworks cannot secure copyright under current US law.
What This Means for Artists
- Human authorship remains key: Artists must be the direct creators or provide significant creative input to gain protection.
- Tool ownership: AI tools can still be licensed, but the resulting output may not be copyrightable unless a human has made substantial creative decisions.
- Legal uncertainty: Developers of generative models face a gray area when commercialising or selling AI‑generated content.
Future Outlook
Legal scholars predict ongoing debates. Some argue for a new category of copyright that recognises machine‑made works, while others warn it could erode the incentives that support creative industries.
Stay Informed
If you’re a creator, developer or legal professional, keep an eye on forthcoming legislation and court rulings that may redefine copyright in the age of AI.
Call to Action
What’s your perspective on AI art and copyright? Share your thoughts by completing our quick survey: dakik.co.uk/survey.
