Generative Artificial Intelligence Copyright
If you have been following along, Legalhotwater addressed the issue with regards to the wild, wild, west unregulated playing field of generative artificial intelligence (“Gen AI”). Gen AI is literally everywhere these days and in this unregulated spectrum Gen AI can do a lot of things, many of which are bad, driven by the nefarious behaviors of engineers and their superiors.
So, for starters, review the case against unregulated Gen AI. Upon doing so, take a look at what is the leading copyright infringement case involving Gen AI in the California central federal district court. A breakdown of the legal issues follow, but can be succinctly put as follows:
-
Can a human directing Gen AI create copyright material for which he or she can seek a copyright license thereof?
This legal question in not a minuscule one. To the contrary, this legal issue will have a far-reaching impact as it speaks to the central issue, which again Legalhotwater raised from day one:
-
Ownership
Who owns what? Who is responsible for the legal ramifications associated with ownership that goes awry? To what extent should Gen AI creators versus operators be insulated from legal claims, if at all? Can Gen AI operators be legally liable in the course of legal claims when wrongdoing is carried out on their computing systems?
Again, these questions are central to the existence of generative artificial intelligence. After all, consider this: why do most everyday users employ Gen AI in the first place? The obvious question is to do work or make the performance of work easier or simplified. So to what extent must the end user massage Gen AI produced material to give rise to what is considered “Original works” of a human?
How could such a massaging process ever be managed and qualified, especially without giving rise to privacy claims? And if the end user cannot claim any degree of ownership, then what is the driving force for the continued use of Gen AI? And lastly, if the end user has no ownership legal entitlements, does that imply that the Gen AI creators (engineers/corporations, etc.) retain an ownership interest in everything Gen AI renders? If so, should not legal liability accompany the same Gen Ai creators (engineers/corporations, etc.) for the fruits of their Gen AI works which eventually involve legal claims?
Leading case: Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office (filed 2023)
Jurisdiction: United States – U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division).
Scope of the legal claim(s):
|
Issue |
What the plaintiff (Stephen Thaler) asserts |
What the court is asked to decide |
|---|---|---|
|
Copyright eligibility |
The images produced by Thaler’s AI system – the “Creativity Machine” (CM -1) – should be treated as works authored by a human (Thaler) because he supplied the prompts, selected the output, and exercised creative control. Therefore the works qualify for copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. §§ 102‑106. |
A declaratory‑judgment that the Copyright Act can be interpreted to grant copyright to works generated by AI when a human contributes the requisite “originality” through prompt‑crafting, selection, or post‑processing. |
|
Statutory interpretation |
Section 102(a) protects “original works of authorship” fixed in a tangible medium. Thaler argues that “author” does not require the author to be a biological person; the statute’s language is technology‑neutral and should encompass AI‑assisted creation. |
Whether the statutory phrase “author of a work” can be read to include a natural‑person who directs an autonomous generative system, or whether the law implicitly requires a human‑originated expression. |
|
Remedy sought |
If the Copyright Office’s refusal to register the AI‑generated images is unlawful, Thaler seeks: • Declaratory relief that the images are copyrightable; • Injunctive relief prohibiting the Office from continuing to deny registration; • Attorney’s fees and costs. |
Whether the court can order the Copyright Office to register the works (or to change its policy) and award fees. |
|
Policy implications |
The decision will set a nation‑wide precedent for how AI‑generated content (art, music, text, code, etc.) is treated under U.S. copyright law, influencing licensing, royalty structures, and downstream infringement litigation. |
The court’s ruling will either open the door for AI‑assisted creations to obtain copyright (subject to a human‑control threshold) or affirm the Office’s stance that purely machine‑generated works are uncopyrightable, leaving them in the public domain. |
Why this case is considered the leading one
-
First major federal suit directly challenging the U.S. Copyright Office’s policy on AI‑generated works.
-
High‑profile plaintiff (inventor Stephen Thaler) and a clearly defined AI system (CM‑1) give the dispute concrete facts rather than abstract speculation.
-
The case has attracted extensive commentary from scholars, industry groups (e.g., the Authors Guild, the Electronic Frontier Foundation), and lawmakers, shaping the broader policy debate on AI and intellectual property.
-
Until a definitive appellate ruling arrives, lower‑court rulings (including the 2024 preliminary injunction granting Thaler limited registration rights) serve as the primary judicial guidance for practitioners dealing with AI‑created works in the United States.
Summary:
Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office is the seminal U.S. case that frames the legal question of whether works produced by generative AI can receive copyright protection, what degree of human involvement satisfies the “author” requirement, and what remedies are available when a federal agency refuses registration. Its outcome will shape the future landscape of AI‑driven creativity and the enforceability of related rights across the United States.