This ruling is part of ongoing efforts by U.S. officials to address the copyright challenges posed by the rapidly advancing generative AI industry. The Copyright Office has also denied copyright claims from artists using AI systems like Midjourney, who argued for copyright protection for AI-assisted creations. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, stated that the provisions of the Copyright Act imply that an author must be a human being, reinforcing the requirement for human authorship in copyright registration.
Key takeaways:
- A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that AI-generated art without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law.
- The court agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only works with human authors can be copyrighted.
- The decision is part of ongoing efforts to address copyright issues in the growing generative AI industry.
- U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett emphasized that U.S. copyright law requires human authorship for registration.