A court in the United States has sided with human creativity by ruling against copyright for AI artwork

Because of this decision, the discussion around artificial intelligence and copyright has shifted, and the value of human innovation in intellectual property has been highlighted.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sided with the U.S. Copyright Office in their position that works made entirely by AI cannot be protected by copyright laws.

This judgment was reached at a time when fears were rising that generative AI will eventually replace human creatives like artists and authors.

Now that more than a hundred days have elapsed since the start of the Hollywood writer’s strike, worries have grown about the possible takeover of scriptwriting by AI. Copyright protection has traditionally only been accorded to human-made works under intellectual property law.

Howell’s decision came after Stephen Thaler challenged the government’s refusal to register his AI-created works in court. Imagination Engines’ CEO and a proponent of neural networks said that AIs that fulfill authorship standards should be given author status. Therefore, the person who owns the AI system should be the one to claim ownership of the product.

Howell argued otherwise, emphasizing the centrality of human writers in copyright law. She cited precedents like Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony to argue that human-created ideas should be protected. Evidence from another instance demonstrated that copyright protections did not extend to images taken by animals.

Also Read: Solving a Valid Bitcoin Block Earns Solo Miner $6.25 BTC Despite Increasing Network Hashrate