"Whether works outputted by an AI system without a direct, traditional authorial contribution by a natural person can be copyrighted."
"Although the D.C. appellate court did not categorically reject registrability of all AI-generated works, the opinion agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being."
"The Copyright Office has ambiguously deemed humanity as the sine qua non of copyright, when this Court has explained the only sine qua non is originality."
Dr. Stephen Thaler seeks Supreme Court review of whether works produced solely by AI systems without direct human contribution can receive copyright protection. A D.C. Circuit panel affirmed denial of registration for one of Thaler's generative AI outputs, agreeing with the Copyright Office that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires initial creation by a human being. Thaler previously requested rehearing en banc in Thaler v. Perlmutter and warned the decision harms AI and creative industries. The petition argues that the Office's interpretation, if consistently applied, could eliminate protection for many photographs and other works made with technological assistance.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]