(Reuters) – Computer scientist Steven Thaler asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to rule that he is entitled to copyright art created by his artificial intelligence system.
Seeking a pretrial victory in a lawsuit filed last June, Thaler filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that claimed that creative works must be created by humans to receive copyright protection. He asked that the authority’s decision be overturned.
Thaler’s lawsuit is one of the first to take over the copyright of AI-generated works, and coincides with the rapid rise of AI-based generative software such as ChatGPT, Dall-E, and Lensa. His attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown, Neri Smith & Kern, told Reuters on Wednesday that “it may not have been so obvious a year and a half ago” that “the case has real economic significance. “There is.”
Abbott also said that protecting AI-created art would further the goals of copyright law, and that in 10 years “some people are wondering whether this sort of thing should be protected.” seems strange,” he said.
The Copyright Office declined to comment.
Thaler has separately fought to obtain patents in 18 global jurisdictions on behalf of his AI invention system. This effort has so far been unsuccessful in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia. A UK Supreme Court hearing on Thaler’s controversy there is scheduled for March.
In 2018, Thaler filed a copyright application for “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” a visual artwork created autonomously by his Creativity Machine system. Thaler’s application listed the system itself as the creator of the work.
The Bureau rejected the application last February, citing “statutory text, case law, and long-standing Copyright Office practice” that a human creator is required for a work to be copyrightable. said.
“Courts that interpret copyright law, including the Supreme Court, uniformly limit copyright protection to works of human authors,” the office said.
In a federal court filing Tuesday, Thaler said the copyright law “does not limit copyright to works created by humans, nor does it limit copyright in any case law,” and the agency’s ruling sets an outdated precedent. said to be based on
“Based on the fact that creativity has traditionally been glorified as human-centered, the fact that various courts refer to creative activity in human-centered terms suggests that there is a legal requirement for human creativity. are very different.”
The case is Thaler v. Perlmutter, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:22-cv-01564.
For Thaler: Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan
U.S. Copyright Office: Jenna Mannery, U.S. Department of Justice
read more:
US scientists face another impasse in patent litigation over AI ‘inventor’
Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
