Intellectual Property News

Ai Generated Artwork Cant Be Copyrighted

US District Court Has Ruled That AI-Generated Artwork Can't Be Copyrighted

Lindokuhle Mkhize

Lindokuhle Mkhize

24 August 20234 min read

share this blog

 AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted

Table of contents

    Last week, a federal judge's decision rejecting a request to copyright an artificial intelligence-generated work of art shed light on the larger legal battle over authorship and intellectual property.

    This case was distinctive. An inventor named Stephen Thaler claimed ownership of the machine and credited his computer system as the author of the artwork, arguing that he should be granted a copyright. This dispute revolved around Thaler's AI system, which produced the piece of art named "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."

    Thaler sued the head of the US Copyright Office after the office repeatedly turned down his request for copyright protection.

    USA Declares AI-generated content can't be copyrighted

    In her ruling on Friday, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia stated that "Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a nonhuman," adding that "we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox."

    Similar rules about human authorship have been used in deciding who owned a monkey's selfie. Thaler created the artwork in question — "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," a lush but pixelated scene of train tracks running through the countryside — in 2012 by asking his computer system to produce an image.

    The decision came after Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office for refusing to grant copyright registration for an image created by his AI algorithm, Creativity Machine.

    Thaler wanted to copyright the image as a "work-for-hire," listing the AI as the creator and himself as the owner. However, Judge Howell stated that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright," dismissing Thaler's claims.

    Should AI-created works have the same protection as human-created works?

    The ruling by the US District Court highlights the debate surrounding copyright protection for AI-generated artwork. While AI can create unique and innovative artwork, the lack of human authorship in the traditional sense makes it challenging to determine who should receive copyright protection for musical works.

    From a marketing perspective, this ruling opens up new possibilities for small businesses and artists to explore AI-generated artwork without fearing copyright infringement. It also raises questions about how much human involvement is in the future of copyright law and how it'll adapt to emerging technologies.

    For small businesses looking to leverage AI-generated artwork in their marketing campaigns, this ruling can provide an opportunity to create original and distinctive content that sets them apart from their competitors. However, it’s crucial to consider the ethical implications and remain transparent about the use of AI in creating such artwork.

    Consequences and potential implications of this ruling

    Small business owners should learn about the protection, use, and commercialization of AI-generated artwork:

    AI and artistic creation

    Artificial intelligence has advanced significantly in recent years, demonstrating its capacity to produce original and creative works of art. Artistic works, music, poetry, and even literature have been produced using AI algorithms like deep learning and generative adversarial networks (GANs).

    This calls into question whether artificial intelligence-generated works should enjoy the same level of protection as those created by human artists.

    Defining human authorship

    The decision of the US District Court illustrates the conventional wisdom that human authorship is necessary for copyright protection. The lack of a human author or participant in the creative process in the instance of Thaler's AI-generated artwork became an essential consideration in denying copyright protection.

    This ruling supports the idea that copyright legislation aims to protect people's original ideas and creative works.

    Artistic collaboration between humans and AI

    The distinctions between human and AI contributions are becoming more hazy as more and more creators and artists use AI as a tool to improve their creative processes. Given the involvement of both human and nonhuman entities, the question of whether a collaborative artwork utilizing AI should be qualified for copyright protection emerges.

    Ethical considerations and transparency

    In this instance, the decision sparks debates about the morality of AI-generated art.

    Transparency is essential when companies and creators examine the possibilities of AI in the creative process. Consumers and other interested parties need to be aware of the role that AI algorithms play to ensure they are knowledgeable about the techniques and technology used.

    Opportunities for businesses and artists

    Although copyright protection for AI-generated art may not be as strong as for conventional art, the decision offers both corporations and artists new ways to use AI in marketing. AI-generated content may give companies a competitive edge by enabling them to stand out by producing unique content.

    Businesses may attract customers who value the use of technology in creative processes by adopting transparency and ethical AI practices.

    Understanding consumer perceptions and preferences regarding AI-generated artwork

    Market research plays a crucial role in consumers' perceptions and preferences regarding AI-generated works.

    Businesses should carefully navigate the landscape of AI-generated artwork, considering legal considerations and consumer perceptions. By embracing transparency, creativity, and strategic partnerships, brands can leverage AI to create compelling and innovative marketing campaigns.

    The decision of the US District Court on the copyright protection of artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI) stresses the significance of human authorship as a necessary condition for copyright eligibility. Determining the proper legal protections for works made by AI in a world where AI is still developing artistically presents difficulties.

    Ethical concerns, openness, and cooperative strategies may ensure the appropriate and successful usage of AI-generated art as corporations and artists navigate this landscape.

    share this blog

    Lindokuhle Mkhize

    Lindokuhle Mkhize


    Lindokuhle Mkhize, a skilled creative copywriter and content lead at Trademarkia, brings a wealth of experience in driving innovation and managing teams. With previous success in starting and growing the Innovation and Marketing department at her former creative agency, Lindokuhle boasts expertise in leadership and delivering compelling content. Based in South Africa, Lindokuhle's work focuses on key themes of creativity, effective communication, and strategic marketing.