The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your AI-generated art
As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand.
The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him.
With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the creative industry during "critically important years." It's worth noting that Thaler also filed applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office for AI-generated inventions, which were rejected for similar reasons.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-supreme-court-doesnt-care-if-you-want-to-copyright-your-ai-generated-art-171849407.html?src=rss
