The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that art generated through artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted, as it lacks the “human authorship” required for protection. The office rejected a copyright request for an A.I.-generated work of art, stating that current copyright law only extends protection to works that are the result of human creative powers. The artist, Stephen Thaler, had submitted an image created by his “Creativity Machine” algorithm, describing it as a “simulated near-death experience.” Thaler argued that the requirement of “human authorship” was unconstitutional, but the USCO upheld its decision. While some countries have allowed patent protection for A.I.-created inventions, the U.S. copyright law does not explicitly address non-human authorship.
| Signal | Change | 10y horizon | Driving force |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Copyright Office rejects A.I. art | Non-human expression | Recognition of A.I. art | Preservation of human authorship |
| Lack of “human authorship” requirement | Emphasis on human authorship | Potential legal framework change | Protection of socially valuable content |
| A.I. inventor recognition | Recognition of A.I. inventors | Expanded legal recognition | Advancement of A.I. technology |
| Different approaches in other countries | Varying copyright standards | Global harmonization of laws | Cultural and legal diversity |