Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works

Judge Millett ruled that copyright law requires authors to be human, not machines, as indicated by multiple provisions in the statute. She highlighted that copyright duration is tied to an author's lifespan, which machines do not have, and that machines lack the personal attributes and intentions necessary for authorship. The judge noted that accepting arguments for machine authorship would lead to problematic questions about a machine's life and death, and inconsistencies in defining a machine as both an author and a tool.

Millett emphasized that machines, including Thaler's Creativity Machine, are considered tools under current law, not authors. She suggested that any changes to accommodate machine authorship should be addressed by Congress or the Copyright Office, as they could adapt laws if future advancements in artificial intelligence produce creative non-humans capable of being incentivized like humans.

Key takeaways:

The judge emphasized that statutory construction requires more than finding a sympathetic dictionary definition, indicating that authors must be humans, not machines.
The duration of copyright is tied to the author's lifespan, which is not applicable to machines as they do not have lives or spouses.
The statute allows copyrights to be transferred to surviving spouses or children, and refers to authors' domiciles and nationalities, which machines do not possess.
The court views machines as tools, not authors, and suggests that arguments for machine authorship should be directed to Congress or the Copyright Office.

Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works

Key takeaways:

Comments (0)

Newsletter