Introduction:
In recent years, the world has seen an upsurge in the creation of artwork that has been generated by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. However, in a recent ruling, a US judge has stated that AI-generated art cannot be granted copyright protections. This landmark decision has significant implications for the artists, innovators, and companies involved in creating such artworks. In this blog post, we will examine this ruling and explore the five main points that the judge considered while making his decision.
1. Human Authorship is Necessary:
The first point that the judge considered was whether AI-generated art can be considered as the work of an author according to US copyright laws. The judge concluded that the key factor for qualifying for copyright is the involvement of human creativity and intervention. Therefore, since AI-generated art is created solely by an algorithm, such artwork lacks the human authorship crucial for copyright.
2. AI Cannot Represent Itself:
The second point was whether copyright protection is available for AI-generated art, and the answer is no, as the AI cannot represent itself as its own author. Copyright laws require a human author to be identified and recognized, limiting the rights of AI-generated art. Therefore, it is the human who ultimately owns the artwork and the copyright arising from it.
3. Art Ownership:
The third point that the judge considered is how ownership of AI-generated art should be assigned. The judge concluded that AI-generated art should be treated as if it was created by someone else, who would legally have the right to claim it as their property. Therefore, companies that have created such art have an obligation to identify the source of the artwork and should seek proper legal authorization before using it.
4. Public Domain:
The fourth point is whether AI-created art should fall into the public domain after it has been generated. The judge stated that copyright law grants exclusive rights to the works’ creators, and since AI is not an author, there are no copyrights to expire or fall into the public domain. Therefore, all AI-generated artworks will not be in the public domain anytime soon.
5. Fair use of AI-generated art:
The final point considered by the judge was whether fair use exemptions could be applied to AI-generated art. In determining this, the judge concluded that fair use doctrine applies only to copyright-protected work, and since AI-generated artwork does not qualify for copyright, fair use exemptions would not be valid.
Conclusion:
The ruling by the US judge that AI-generated art cannot be granted copyright protection has significant implications for the future of art and AI. It highlights the significance of human creativity and intervention in the creation of the art and emphasizes that the protection of intellectual property plays a crucial role in the art world. Therefore, it is essential for artists, creators, and companies to ensure that they comply with copyright laws and take the necessary legal measures to protect their works. Though AI algorithms are becoming more sophisticated, the human touch that makes art unique and remarkable will always be necessary.
English 
Deutsch (Sie)