The case is not about the copyrightability of AI art in general, but rather about the necessity of human creativity in the process. The court did not consider arguments about the human involvement in creating the AI, invoking it, and choosing what output to copyright, as Thaler insisted these factors were irrelevant. The case highlights the legal complexities surrounding AI and copyright, suggesting that future cases will need to delve deeper into these issues.
Key takeaways:
- The court ruled in Thaler v. Perlmutter that copyright requires human authorship, not that AI art can't be copyrighted.
- Stephen Thaler tried to register copyright for an image created by his AI "Creativity Machine", but the court agreed with the Copyright Office's rejection, stating that only creative works authored by people can be registered.
- Thaler's insistence that his AI was fully autonomous limited the legal question to whether human creativity is required for copyright, not whether AI art in general can be copyrighted.
- The case is not about copyright in AI art, but about copyright when it is assumed that an AI system is like a god or a monkey, creating art without human involvement.