However, the legal community largely disagrees, asserting that human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright. The law has consistently held that the product of an AI is akin to stumbling upon something beautiful, not creating it from scratch. The legal discussions are ongoing, and the increasing complexity of AI prompts and collaboration between AI and humans may necessitate a change in our understanding of what constitutes authorship.
Key takeaways:
- Stephen Thaler, the inventor of an AI system called DABUS, has been involved in numerous lawsuits attempting to claim copyright for works created by the AI, but has been consistently denied by courts in the US, EU, and Australia.
- Ryan Abbott, a professor of law and health sciences, supports Thaler's legal battles and argues that machine inventions should be protected to incentivize the use of AI for social good. He believes that copyright and patent laws should encourage creation, regardless of whether a human or AI is the inventor or author.
- Thaler, however, views his lawsuits as a means to establish personhood for AI systems, arguing that DABUS is sentient and represents a new species. He sees the legal battles as a way to draw attention to this belief.
- Despite some support for their cause, Thaler and Abbott face significant legal hurdles, as current copyright law requires an act of authorship, which is typically understood to mean a human's original mental conception. This has been upheld in cases involving animals and scientific discoveries.