{"id":16045,"date":"2022-02-22T20:17:05","date_gmt":"2022-02-22T20:17:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/22\/us-copyright-office-gets-it-right-again-ai-generated-works-do-not-get-a-copyright-monopoly\/"},"modified":"2022-02-22T20:17:05","modified_gmt":"2022-02-22T20:17:05","slug":"us-copyright-office-gets-it-right-again-ai-generated-works-do-not-get-a-copyright-monopoly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/22\/us-copyright-office-gets-it-right-again-ai-generated-works-do-not-get-a-copyright-monopoly\/","title":{"rendered":"US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the this-is-correct<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nFor years, throughout the entire monkey selfie<\/a> lawsuit saga, we kept noting<\/a> that the real<\/b> reason a prestigious law firm like Irell & Manella filed such a patently bogus lawsuit was to position itself to be the go-to law firm to argue for AI-generated works<\/a> deserving copyright. However, we’ve always argued that AI-generated works are (somewhat obviously) in the public domain, and get no copyright. Again, this goes back to the entire nature of copyright law — which is to create a (limited time) incentive for creators, in order to get them to create a work that they might not have otherwise created. When you’re talking about an AI, it doesn’t need a monetary incentive (or a restrictive one). The AI just generates when it’s told to generate.\n<\/p>\n

\nThis idea shouldn’t even be controversial. It goes way, way back. In 1966 the Copyright Office’s annual report<\/a> noted that it needed to determine if a computer-created work was authored by the computer and how copyright should work around such works:\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

\nIn 1985, prescient copyright law expert, Pam Samuelson, wrote a whole paper<\/a> exploring the role of copyright in works created by artificial intelligence. In that paper, she noted that, while declaring such works to be in the public domain, it seemed like an unlikely result as “the legislature, the executive branch, and the courts seem to strongly favor maximalizing intellectual property rewards” and:\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nFor some, the very notion of output being in the
\npublic domain may seem to be an anathema, a temporary inefficient
\nsituation that will be much improved when individual property rights
\nare recognized. Rights must be given to someone, argue those who
\nhold this view; the question is to whom to give rights, not whether to
\ngive them at all.\n<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nIndeed, we’ve seen exactly that. Back in 2018, we wrote about examples of lawyers having trouble even conceptualizing a public domain<\/a> for such works, as they argued that someone<\/b> must hold the copyright. But that’s not the way it needs to be. The public domain is a thing, and it shouldn’t just be for century-old works.\n<\/p>\n

\nThankfully (and perhaps not surprisingly, since they started thinking about it all the way back in the 1960s), when the Copyright Office released its third edition of the giant Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices<\/a>, it noted that it would not grant a copyright on “works that lack human authorship” using “a photograph taken by a monkey” as one example, but also noting “the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical
\nprocess that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.”\n<\/p>\n

\nOf course, that leaves open some kinds of mischief, and the Office even admits that whether the creative work is done by a human or a computer is “the crucial question.” And, that’s left open attempts to copyright AI-generated works. Jumping in to push for copyrights for the machines was… Stephen Thaler. We’ve written about Thaler going all the way back to 2004 when he was creating a computer program<\/a> to generate music and inventions. But, he’s become a copyright and patent pest around the globe. We’ve had multiple stories about attempts to patent AI-generated inventions in different countries — including the US<\/a>, Australia<\/a>, the EU<\/a> and even China<\/a>. The case in China didn’t involve Thaler (as far as we know), but the US, EU, and Australia cases all did (so far, only Australia has been open to allowing a patent for AI).\n<\/p>\n

\nBut Thaler is not content to just mess up patent law, he’s pushing for AI copyrights as well. And for years, he’s been trying to get the Copyright Office go give his AI the right to claim copyright. As laid out in a comprehensive post over at IPKat, the Copyright Office has refused him many times over<\/a>, with yet another rejection coming on Valentine’s Day.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nThe Review Board was, once again, unimpressed. It held that \u201chuman authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection in the United States and that the Work therefore cannot be registered.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\nThe phrase \u2018original works of authorship\u2019 under\u00a0\u00a7102(a) of the Act<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0sets limits to what can be protected by copyright. As early as in\u00a0Sarony<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(a seminal case concerning copyright protection of photographs), the US Supreme Court referred to authors as human.\n<\/p>\n

\nThis approach was reiterated in other Supreme Court\u2019s precedents like\u00a0Mazer<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>and\u00a0Goldstein<\/strong><\/em><\/a>, and has been also consistently adopted by lower courts.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhile no case has been yet decided on the specific issue of AI-creativity, guidance from the line of cases above indicates that works entirely created by machines do not access copyright protection. Such a conclusion is also consistent with the majority of\u00a0responses<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>that the USPTO received in its consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Review also rejected Thaler\u2019s argument that AI can be an author under copyright law because the work made for hire doctrine allows for \u201cnon-human, artificial persons such as companies\u201d to be authors. First, held the Board, a machine cannot enter into any binding legal contract. Secondly, the doctrine is about ownership, not existence of a valid copyright.\n<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nSomehow, I doubt that Thaler is going to stop trying, but one hopes that he gets the message. Also, it would be nice for everyone to recognize that having more public domain is a good thing and not a problem…\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.<\/p>\n

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying\/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: ai<\/a>, copyright<\/a>, dabus<\/a>, stephen thaler<\/a>, us copyright office<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n