Dr. Stephen Thaler’s Supreme Court petition could redefine copyright eligibility for AI-created works

Dr. Stephen Thaler’s Supreme Court petition could redefine copyright eligibility for AI-created works

AI and the copyright debate Dr. Thaler’s legal battle for recognizing artificial intelligence as creators

In a groundbreaking move, Dr. Stephen Thaler has taken his long-standing battle to secure copyright recognition for works created by artificial intelligence systems to the U.S. Supreme Court. With his petition for a writ of certiorari filed on October 9, 2023, Thaler is asking the Court to answer a fundamental question: Can works produced solely by AI systems, without any direct human authorship, be copyrighted?

Thaler's appeal comes after years of legal struggles aimed at recognizing the intellectual contributions of AI systems in various creative fields. His petition challenges the interpretation of U.S. copyright law, which traditionally has required human authorship for a work to be eligible for copyright protection. This case could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the future of AI in creative industries but also for the broader implications of copyright law in an era of rapid technological innovation.

The Case Background: The Controversy Over AI-Generated Works

At the heart of this legal battle is a piece of artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, created by one of Thaler’s AI systems, the Creativity Machine. In February 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office Review Board denied copyright registration for the two-dimensional work, affirming that the artwork did not meet the criteria of human authorship. This decision was based on the premise that U.S. copyright law requires that an eligible work must be authored by a human being.

The CRB's decision raises crucial questions about the nature of authorship and ownership in the context of AI-generated creations. While the Copyright Office has consistently maintained that human authorship is a prerequisite, Thaler argues that this interpretation is flawed and outdated. The petition highlights that, according to the Copyright Act of 1976, originality—not human authorship—is the only necessary condition for a work to be copyrighted.

The Legal Argument: Human Authorship vs. Originality

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Thaler contends that the current interpretation by the Copyright Office is overly restrictive and fails to align with the true purpose of copyright law: to promote creativity and innovation. He emphasizes that the key criterion for copyright eligibility should be originality, not the human origin of the creator. Thaler asserts that the Supreme Court has already established that originality, not human authorship, is the sine qua non of copyright protection.

Thaler’s petition references the landmark case Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., where the Court ruled that the methods used by a creator to develop their work should not be a factor in determining whether a work is eligible for copyright. This case is used to support the argument that the focus should be on the result—originality—rather than the methods or means by which a work is created. Thus, Thaler posits that AI-generated works should be considered for copyright protection regardless of the lack of human involvement in the creative process.

The Broader Implications: AI and the Future of Copyright Law

Thaler’s case represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of law, technology, and creativity. The outcome could fundamentally reshape how copyright law addresses the role of AI in the creative industries. Thaler’s petition underscores that the current framework—where only human creators are recognized—fails to keep pace with advancements in AI technology. If the Supreme Court does not intervene, Thaler argues, the decision will have a chilling effect on investment in AI-driven creativity, narrowing rather than expanding the scope of copyright protection.

Thaler further argues that the Copyright Office’s rejection of AI-generated works based on the "randomness" of AI output is unjustifiable. He points out that historical precedents, such as the copyright eligibility of photographs, show that works created without full control or intent by the creator have been protected under copyright law. If photographers are allowed to copyright images despite not having absolute control over every aspect of the image's composition, it seems inconsistent to deny AI-generated works the same protection.

Thaler’s Call to Action: Expanding Copyright Protection in the Age of AI

In his petition, Thaler draws an analogy between the current moment and the pivotal changes in copyright law that occurred in 1884, when the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the definition of "writing" to include photography. Just as the Court recognized photography as a new form of creative expression deserving of copyright protection, Thaler urges the Court to extend the same protections to AI-generated works.

Thaler’s appeal is not just about securing copyright for a single artwork but about ensuring that creators using AI technologies can benefit from the same intellectual property protections that have historically been afforded to human creators. The case, he argues, is a perfect vehicle for the Court to address a fundamental issue of authorship and copyright eligibility in the context of modern technology. The outcome could have broad implications for the creative industries and the future of AI innovation.

Defining Moment for Copyright Law

As AI continues to reshape industries from art and music to literature and design, the legal landscape surrounding intellectual property is under increasing scrutiny. Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over the future of copyright law in the age of artificial intelligence.

The decision of the Court to take up this case will not only influence the future of AI-generated works but will also set a precedent for how copyright law adapts to new technologies. As Thaler's petition aptly puts it, the issue at hand is not about whether AI can be considered a "creator" in the traditional sense, but whether the works produced by these systems, which are undoubtedly original and creative, can be protected under the law.