3 notable cases involving the refuse of recognition of AI as authors, contributors to works or inventions
Earlier this year, the legal community was rocked by the revelation that two American attorneys were penalized for referencing nonexistent legal sources generated by the AI, ChatGPT, in their submissions. This incident, while casting a negative shadow on AI, underlines the boundless capabilities of artificial intelligence, including tasks such as legal research and document drafting.
AI has become an integral part of our lives, from virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa on our smartphones to Tesla’s autopilot feature. Yet, a significant debate remains unresolved: can AI-generated works be owned and protected under intellectual property laws?
Amidst the rapid advancement of technology, there’s a pressing need to explore the concept of authorship and inventorship concerning AI-generated creations and patents. The current conflict on the fight between IP rights and the recognition of technology protected by AI can be expressed clearly in the following 3 cases:
Dr. Thaler’s Legal Battles
Central to the discussion of AI-generated works’ authorship and inventorship is Dr. Stephen Thaler. He has been at the forefront of challenging intellectual property laws, specifically concerning copyrights and patents generated by AI.
Thaler has initiated legal proceedings in multiple countries, including Australia, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, and South Africa, in an effort to secure intellectual property protection for his invention, “DABUS” (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). However, his success has been limited, with only South Africa ruling in his favor.
Thaler, claiming ownership of the “Creativity Machine,” a computer system, sought copyright registration for a piece of visual art titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” generated autonomously by the system. The Copyright Office denied the application, citing the absence of human authorship, a prerequisite for valid copyright. Thaler challenged this decision, but the court upheld the denial, emphasizing the necessity of human involvement for copyright recognition.
UK Court of Appeal Upholds Requirement for Human Inventor
Thaler’s UK case involved two patent applications autonomously created by DABUS. Thaler identified DABUS as the inventor and himself as the owner due to his ownership of DABUS. However, the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks rejected the applications, asserting that DABUS couldn’t be recognized as an inventor since it lacks personhood under UK patent legislation.
Thaler’s appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal reiterated that an inventor must be a natural person according to UK legislation, dismissing the notion of AI as an inventor. Thaler has appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which heard the case in March, but a verdict is pending.
U.S. District Court Rejects AI-Generated Copyright Claim
In a verdict delivered in August, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared that artistic works created by AI without human intervention are ineligible for copyright protection.
Until now, there has been 2 verdicts by the USA’s Court denying the protection of copyright for works created with the support of AI like Chat GPT, Midjourney.
The first time, the US Copyright Office refused to grant copyright registration to works compiled by the AI application MidJourney. Second time, the US Copyright Office continued to issue a similar ruling, denying the copyright application of author Jason M. Allen synthesizing paintings created with the Midjourney AI system.
In early February 2023, the US Copyright Office rejected the copyright application for the graphic novel series created by AI MidJourney, compiled by female author Kris Kashtanova called “Zarya of the Dawn”. The US Copyright Office refused on the grounds that the above work did not demonstrate the author’s creativity because it was entirely created by MidJourney.
This refusal has created a big wave for the community of new-age authors using AI software to create their works like Kris, which is gradually becoming a popular international trend. Even MidJourney itself has voiced its efforts to support Kris in registering his works as well as other authors using their software.
However, before Kris’s fight had any new developments, the US Copyright Office issued a similar announcement for the second time.
According to the official notice of the US Copyright Office in early September 2023, the science fiction-themed photo “Theater D’opera Spatial” by author Allen is not copyrighted because it is not a work created by human authors.
***Other Articles***
– You could check Required documents of filing trademark in USA here.
– You could see What needs to be done after registering a trademark in US? here.
– You could visit here to see What is use in commerce of filing trademark in USA.
– You could also check here to see Procedure of Trademark in USA.
Contact AAA IPRIGHT: Email: [email protected]
Or sending your inquiry by filling the form:
