US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted (reuters.com)

Article summary

A US appeals court has ruled that art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under US law. The case involved a plaintiff who listed a computer algorithm as the sole author of a work. The ruling is seen as a significant development in the debate over AI-generated art and its relationship to copyright law. The decision may have implications for the use of AI in creative fields and the ownership of AI-generated works.

Main themes

• AI-generated art
• Copyright law
• Human authorship
• Artistic ownership
• Legal implications

What commenters say

• The court's ruling is a necessary clarification of the law, as human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection.
• The decision may not address the issue of human selection or curation of AI-generated art, which could be considered a form of authorship.
• Allowing AI-generated art to be copyrighted could lead to abuse and exploitation by individuals or companies seeking to claim ownership of automatically generated works.
• The use of AI in creative fields raises questions about the role of human input and the nature of authorship, and the law must adapt to these new developments.
• The ruling is a positive step towards preventing copyright trolling and abuse, as it limits the ability of individuals to claim ownership of automatically generated works.
• The distinction between human-generated and AI-generated art is not always clear-cut, and the law must consider the complexities of collaborative creativity and the role of AI in the creative process.