Artificial Intelligence in Art: navigating the copyright maze

The intertwining of artificial intelligence (AI) with copyright jurisprudence has been thrust into the limelight, following a landmark decision by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell. The verdict offers fresh insights into the contentious debate surrounding AI artwork's eligibility for copyright protection. Let’s delve into Judge Howell’s rationale and its potential ripple effects on the broader domain of AI artistry, and evaluate the intricate road ahead.

In a groundbreaking decision, Beryl A. Howell, a judge at the United States District Court, established that artworks produced by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be granted copyright protection. The verdict arrived in the backdrop of a legal tussle involving Stephen Thaler, the developer of an algorithm called the Creativity Machine, and the US Copyright Office.

Thaler, driven by the belief that his AI-created image was deserving of copyright protection, submitted multiple applications, seeking to recognize the Creativity Machine as the artwork's author and himself as the proprietor. Each of these attempts was met with rejection from the Copyright Office.

His grievance took a legal turn when he challenged the Office's decision, asserting it was irrational and contrary to established legal principles. However, Judge Howell, in her ruling, emphasized the historical precedence that copyright protection was founded on human authorship. She pointed out that copyright has historically been withheld from creations devoid of human intervention. As an illustrative example, she cited past incidents, such as the famed monkey selfie case. On the flip side, she referenced a unique scenario where a woman received copyright for a book she claimed was composed under the influence of a supernatural entity, underlining the requisite element of human involvement.

Nevertheless, Judge Howell's decision resonated with an acknowledgment of the rapidly evolving digital landscape. She conceded that we stand on the brink of a transformative phase in copyright jurisprudence, as AI starts playing a pivotal role in artistic creations. This inevitably invites intricate debates over the quantum of human contribution necessary to validate copyright claims for AI-generated content. Furthermore, she flagged the complexity introduced by the fact that many AI models derive their training from pre-existing content, potentially muddying the waters around originality.

Reacting to the judgment, Thaler's legal counsel, Ryan Abbot from Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, signaled their intent to challenge the decision on appeal, expressing their disagreement with the court's reading of the Copyright Act.

The case sheds light on a broader, emerging confrontation between AI and copyright regulations in the US. Prominent figures like Sarah Silverman and other authors have recently initiated legal actions against tech giants such as OpenAI and Meta over data extraction techniques employed by their AI models. Similarly, allegations of software piracy due to data scraping practices of major entities like Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI have been brought forth by Matthew Butterick, a programmer-cum-lawyer.

As we stand at the intersection of technology and law, such cases exemplify the impending challenges that the legal fraternity is poised to tackle, redefining the boundaries of intellectual property in the age of AI.


Judge Howell's verdict underscores the sanctity of human genesis within copyright jurisprudence. The intricate dance between AI and copyright will undoubtedly persist, bearing profound repercussions for the artistic and tech communities alike. The fate of Stephen Thaler's impending appeal and other such litigations will undoubtedly sculpt the copyright trajectory in the AI epoch.

Posta un commento