https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/02/us-copyright-office-refuses-to-register.html The IPKat Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate! The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here! The team is joined by GuestKats Sophie Corke, Gabriele Girardello, Riana Harvey, Rose Hughes, Jan Jacobi, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Becky Knott, Nedim Malovic, and Frantzeska Papadopolou. SpecialKats: Veronica Rodriguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent). InternKats: James Kwong, Giorgio Luceri and Alexandre Zanatta Miura. [ ] Home * A bit more about the IPKat * The IPKat Team * Kats' posts * Kats of the Past & Emeritus Kats * Forthcoming Events * Topics * Policies Home / AI / Artificial Intelligence / authorship / copyright / Eleonora Rosati / human authorship / thaler / US copyright / US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" Eleonora Rosati Thursday, February 17, 2022 - AI, Artificial Intelligence, authorship, copyright, Eleonora Rosati, human authorship, thaler, US copyright Can a work entirely created by a machine be protected by copyright? On Valentine's Day, the US Copyright Office (Review Board) answered this question with a heartbreaking 'no', holding that "copyright law only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind"" and consequently refusing to register the two-dimensional artwork 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' below (the 'Work'): [AVvXsEjKZp] Creativity Machine's A Recent Entrance to Paradise Background In 2018, Stephen Thaler (if the name rings an AI inventor-bell then you're hearing it right) applied to register a copyright claim in the Work, indicating "Creativity Machine" as the author and Thaler as the owner of such machine. The application stated that the Work had been autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine. Registration was sought as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine. In 2019, the Copyright Office rejected the application, holding that human authorship is necessary to support a copyright claim. This conclusion is in line with what is expressly stated in the Compendium of Practices (p. 21-22): [T]he Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. The crucial question is "whether the 'work' is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine." U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966). Thaler then requested a reconsideration of the decision, arguing that the human authorship requirement would be contrary to the US Constitution and be unsupported by either statute or case law. Such a request was once again unsuccessful. A second request for reconsideration followed, also submitting that the Copyright Office "is currently relying upon non-binding judicial opinions from the Gilded Age to answer the question of whether [computer-generated works] can be protected." The Review Board's decision The Review Board was, once again, unimpressed. It held that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection in the United States and that the Work therefore cannot be registered." The phrase 'original works of authorship' under SS102(a) of the Act sets limits to what can be protected by copyright. As early as in Sarony (a seminal case concerning copyright protection of photographs), the US Supreme Court referred to authors as human. This approach was reiterated in other Supreme Court's precedents like Mazer and Goldstein, and has been also consistently adopted by lower courts. While no case has been yet decided on the specific issue of AI-creativity, guidance from the line of cases above indicates that works entirely created by machines do not access copyright protection. Such a conclusion is also consistent with the majority of responses that the USPTO received in its consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy. [AVvXsEhel5dyD6hs2dP8wA0V96Q_5ZJwCfPT3ZLmvxANhesZRShQIVCI] AI-generated Kats The Review Board also rejected Thaler's argument that AI can be an author under copyright law because the work made for hire doctrine allows for "non-human, artificial persons such as companies" to be authors. First, held the Board, a machine cannot enter into any binding legal contract. Secondly, the doctrine is about ownership, not existence of a valid copyright. Comment The decision appears appropriate, also in light of international law. While the Berne Convention does not define who can be regarded as an author, from its text and historical context, it appears that only natural persons who created the work can be regarded as authors. In particular, although Berne does not explicitly set an originality requirement, this already existed in national copyright laws at the time of drafting the Convention. According to Ricketson, it was clearly understood that this was also a requirement for the purposes of protection under the Convention, and inherent in the phrase 'literary and artistic works' in Article 2. The condition that a literary and artistic work possesses a sufficient (how much, however, the Convention does not say) degree of originality postulates "the need for the author to be a human being and for there to be some intellectual contribution above and beyond that of simple effort ('sweat of the brow') or what may be called mere 'value in exchange'.'" In any case, the above does not mean that there are no situations in which also works created by non-human authors can qualify for protection, a notable (and controversial) example being section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Looking at authorship from an EU perspective, Article 1(5) of the Sat-Cab Directive states that, for cinematographic or audiovisual works, the principal director shall be considered as its author or one of its authors, leaving Member States free to provide for others to be considered as co-authors. Article 2(1) of the Software Directive provides that the author of a computer program shall be the natural person or group of natural persons who has created the program or, where the legislation of the Member State permits, the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation. Article 4(1) of the Database Directive admits the possibility that the author of a database can be, not just the natural person or group of natural persons who created the base, but also--where the legislation of the Member States so permits--the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation. In any case, the Term Directive refers the calculation of the term of protection of copyright to the life of authors as 'physical persons'. In addition, the preamble to the DSM Directive specifies that the authors and performers that shall be able to rely on the provisions on contracts therein shall only be natural persons, thus excluding from the scope of application non-human authors and performers. The Court of Justice of the European Union has not yet specifically tackled the question of who or what an author is. Nonetheless, it appears that its own understanding of originality - as a notion that presupposes a personal touch (Painer) and the making of free and creative choices (most recently, Brompton) - is indeed premised on the idea that authors in a copyright sense need to be human. But the question that all romantics after Valentine's Day might ask is whether the last word on non-human authorship has been spoken yet. As it is the case of all real love stories, probably not. Thus: stay tuned for the next AI+IP development ... US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Thursday, February 17, 2022 Rating: 5 The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence. Print this post Share This: Facebook Twitter Linkedin Whatsapp US copyright * * 2 comments: 1. [blogger_lo] DarrenFriday, 18 February 2022 at 12:04:00 GMT Imagine being a student now and the questions we could ask in our exams. Fwiw I think this is ok for now, when AI takes over they'll clearly allow it . PS nice to see you all back, been following since the CII days in 2005 ReplyDelete Replies Reply 2. [blank] AnonymousFriday, 18 February 2022 at 14:26:00 GMT The last word on AI authorship has not been spoken yet. Law will need to consider the extent to which AI/machine driven creativity should be recognised in authorship which in turn might involve a a consideration of the value of the initial human input in the product. ReplyDelete Replies Reply Add comment Load more... All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment. It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow. Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom ) The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone! The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone! How many page-views has the IPKat received? Not just any old IPKat ... * "Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, February 2022. * "Most Popular Copyright Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, February 2022. * PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the World Intellectual Property Review's "Influential Women in IP" of 2020. * PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2018. * IPKat founder and Blogmeister Emeritus Jeremy Phillips listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014. * Recommended by the European Patent Office as reading material for candidates for the European Qualifying Examinations, 2013. * Listed as "Top Legal Blog" in The Times Online, March 2011. * One of the only two non-US blogs listed in the Blawg 2010 ABA Journal 100. * Court Reporter Top Copyright Blog award winner, November 2010. * Number 1 in the 2010 Top Copyright Blog list compiled by the Copyright Litigation Blog, July 2010. * Selected by the United States Library of Congress for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to Legal Blawgs as of 2010. * Top Patent Blog poll 2009: 3rd out of 50 in the "Favourite Patent Blog" poll and 2nd out of 50 in the "Most-read" poll. * ComputerWeekly IT Law and Governance Blog of the Year, 20 August 2008. * Best of the Blogs, Times Online, 21 August 2008. [blawg2] Get the Kat in your Inbox! Over 16,400 readers already subscribe to the IPKat by email. To subscribe click here and enter your preferred e-mail address. Any problems, please let the IPKat team know. The Kat that tweets! Current followers: 21.7K [tweetcat2] To follow the IPKat team's posts and comments on Twitter, just click here Follow @Ipkat Tweets by Ipkat Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn [favicon] Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn here! Follow the IPKat on Facebook Follow the IPKat on Reddit Follow the IPKat on Reddit! Follow the IPKat on Reddit here! The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days * US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generated work, finding that "human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection" * [Guest post] What do a (little) mermaid and a non-statutory caricature/parody exception share? A tale from Denmark [Guest post] What do a (little) mermaid and a non-statutory caricature/parody exception share? A tale from Denmark * ST. 26 sequence listings: A forward or backward step for ease of access to patent sequence data? ST. 26 sequence listings: A forward or backward step for ease of access to patent sequence data? * How do you protect an iconic handbag? Milan court considers IP rights vesting in Longchamp's Le Pliage How do you protect an iconic handbag? Milan court considers IP rights vesting in Longchamp's Le Pliage * New SPC referral to the CJEU on the interpretation of Art 3(a) and (c) for combination products (Merck v Clonmel) New SPC referral to the CJEU on the interpretation of Art 3(a) and (c) for combination products (Merck v Clonmel) * Italian Supreme Court says that the quotation exception in copyright law only applies to partial reproductions of works, never to works in their entirety Italian Supreme Court says that the quotation exception in copyright law only applies to partial reproductions of works, never to works in their entirety * Eos fails to register the shape of its lip balm as EUTM (case C-672/21 P) Eos fails to register the shape of its lip balm as EUTM (case C-672/21 P) * Design Board established in Denmark - a welcome step for artists and designers? Design Board established in Denmark - a welcome step for artists and designers? * Don't you dare use the name of the book for that movie! Don't you dare use the name of the book for that movie! * Applying G1/21 (ViCo oral proceedings): The real test is yet to come Applying G1/21 (ViCo oral proceedings): The real test is yet to come Search This Blog [ ] [Search] Blog Archive * V 2022 (95) + > March 2022 (14) + V February 2022 (39) o Here is the glen, and here the door: German whisky... o The impact of Brexit for EU trade mark injunctions o Retromark: the conference is back on 24 May - sign... o Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! o Sunday Surprises o Around the IP Blogs o [Guest post] Shanghai court: the doctrine of exhau... o Forthcoming ERA IP events with IPKat readers' spec... o Applying G1/21 (ViCo oral proceedings): The real t... o Eos fails to register the shape of its lip balm as... o Monday Miscellany o What's in an Italian Patent (Innovation) Box? Pate... o Telecom patents prompt EU legal challenge against ... o Never Too Late: If you missed The IPKat last week! o Around the IP Blogs o ST. 26 sequence listings: A forward or backward st... o US Copyright Office refuses to register AI-generat... o [Guest post] What do a (little) mermaid and a non... o A Master(s) Class in Genuine Use? UK IPO rejects r... o Joe Rogan, Spotify, and the music streaming busine... o Ukraine to voluntarily implement Art. 17 of the Co... o Monday Miscellany o [Guest post] Conference Report: Fourth IP & Innova... o Around the IP Blogs o In Memoriam: Ronald J. Lehrman (1932-2022) o New Guidelines for Trade mark Examination and Tria... o Dutch court rejects copyright infringement claim o... o Thomas and Henrietta Maria Bowdler, and the works ... o New referrals to the Enlarged Board on the EPO's j... o Never Too Late: If you missed The IPKat last week! o Changes in the draft 2022 EPO Guidelines for Exami... o IPKat Book of the Year 2021 Winners! o ATRIP 2022 GOING ONLINE 22th-24th of June o Sunday Surprises o Around the IP Blogs o European Commission calls for evidence on anti-cou... o Swedish court applies C-762/19 CV-Online Latvia in... o UK IPO announce new IP Counter-Infringement strategy o Neurim v. Mylan-- the Illiad was shorter + > January 2022 (42) * > 2021 (431) + > December 2021 (40) + > November 2021 (40) + > October 2021 (34) + > September 2021 (37) + > August 2021 (36) + > July 2021 (39) + > June 2021 (25) + > May 2021 (40) + > April 2021 (35) + > March 2021 (36) + > February 2021 (28) + > January 2021 (41) * > 2020 (590) + > December 2020 (47) + > November 2020 (37) + > October 2020 (40) + > September 2020 (42) + > August 2020 (44) + > July 2020 (56) + > June 2020 (48) + > May 2020 (50) + > April 2020 (52) + > March 2020 (58) + > February 2020 (54) + > January 2020 (62) * > 2019 (748) + > December 2019 (45) + > November 2019 (60) + > October 2019 (66) + > September 2019 (58) + > August 2019 (55) + > July 2019 (60) + > June 2019 (60) + > May 2019 (66) + > April 2019 (74) + > March 2019 (67) + > February 2019 (69) + > January 2019 (68) * > 2018 (524) + > December 2018 (50) + > November 2018 (42) + > October 2018 (47) + > September 2018 (31) + > August 2018 (29) + > July 2018 (28) + > June 2018 (37) + > May 2018 (44) + > April 2018 (44) + > March 2018 (60) + > February 2018 (58) + > January 2018 (54) * > 2017 (599) + > December 2017 (44) + > November 2017 (61) + > October 2017 (68) + > September 2017 (38) + > August 2017 (30) + > July 2017 (57) + > June 2017 (62) + > May 2017 (57) + > April 2017 (53) + > March 2017 (53) + > February 2017 (41) + > January 2017 (35) * > 2016 (598) + > December 2016 (55) + > November 2016 (45) + > October 2016 (44) + > September 2016 (61) + > August 2016 (33) + > July 2016 (38) + > June 2016 (47) + > May 2016 (62) + > April 2016 (62) + > March 2016 (63) + > February 2016 (41) + > January 2016 (47) * > 2015 (864) + > December 2015 (57) + > November 2015 (76) + > October 2015 (71) + > September 2015 (60) + > August 2015 (69) + > July 2015 (74) + > June 2015 (72) + > May 2015 (67) + > April 2015 (65) + > March 2015 (93) + > February 2015 (73) + > January 2015 (87) * > 2014 (880) + > December 2014 (89) + > November 2014 (58) + > October 2014 (74) + > September 2014 (78) + > August 2014 (68) + > July 2014 (73) + > June 2014 (76) + > May 2014 (72) + > April 2014 (69) + > March 2014 (67) + > February 2014 (78) + > January 2014 (78) * > 2013 (768) + > December 2013 (64) + > November 2013 (78) + > October 2013 (72) + > September 2013 (54) + > August 2013 (57) + > July 2013 (72) + > June 2013 (56) + > May 2013 (63) + > April 2013 (73) + > March 2013 (62) + > February 2013 (55) + > January 2013 (62) * > 2012 (824) + > December 2012 (48) + > November 2012 (77) + > October 2012 (69) + > September 2012 (65) + > August 2012 (56) + > July 2012 (70) + > June 2012 (68) + > May 2012 (61) + > April 2012 (70) + > March 2012 (78) + > February 2012 (81) + > January 2012 (81) * > 2011 (767) + > December 2011 (66) + > November 2011 (69) + > October 2011 (62) + > September 2011 (43) + > August 2011 (61) + > July 2011 (68) + > June 2011 (61) + > May 2011 (63) + > April 2011 (68) + > March 2011 (76) + > February 2011 (66) + > January 2011 (64) * > 2010 (747) + > December 2010 (74) + > November 2010 (60) + > October 2010 (67) + > September 2010 (60) + > August 2010 (64) + > July 2010 (62) + > June 2010 (57) + > May 2010 (61) + > April 2010 (75) + > March 2010 (63) + > February 2010 (50) + > January 2010 (54) * > 2009 (666) + > December 2009 (50) + > November 2009 (70) + > October 2009 (58) + > September 2009 (49) + > August 2009 (55) + > July 2009 (59) + > June 2009 (57) + > May 2009 (40) + > April 2009 (51) + > March 2009 (61) + > February 2009 (56) + > January 2009 (60) * > 2008 (775) + > December 2008 (53) + > November 2008 (66) + > October 2008 (60) + > September 2008 (52) + > August 2008 (56) + > July 2008 (60) + > June 2008 (74) + > May 2008 (78) + > April 2008 (72) + > March 2008 (70) + > February 2008 (59) + > January 2008 (75) * > 2007 (844) + > December 2007 (55) + > November 2007 (71) + > October 2007 (64) + > September 2007 (54) + > August 2007 (51) + > July 2007 (77) + > June 2007 (75) + > May 2007 (76) + > April 2007 (62) + > March 2007 (92) + > February 2007 (84) + > January 2007 (83) * > 2006 (766) + > December 2006 (59) + > November 2006 (74) + > October 2006 (57) + > September 2006 (52) + > August 2006 (53) + > July 2006 (61) + > June 2006 (60) + > May 2006 (66) + > April 2006 (64) + > March 2006 (83) + > February 2006 (59) + > January 2006 (78) * > 2005 (870) + > December 2005 (65) + > November 2005 (68) + > October 2005 (56) + > September 2005 (68) + > August 2005 (70) + > July 2005 (74) + > June 2005 (90) + > May 2005 (79) + > April 2005 (84) + > March 2005 (63) + > February 2005 (70) + > January 2005 (83) * > 2004 (739) + > December 2004 (81) + > November 2004 (95) + > October 2004 (81) + > September 2004 (66) + > August 2004 (43) + > July 2004 (63) + > June 2004 (49) + > May 2004 (49) + > April 2004 (46) + > March 2004 (61) + > February 2004 (45) + > January 2004 (60) * > 2003 (344) + > December 2003 (59) + > November 2003 (62) + > October 2003 (52) + > September 2003 (58) + > August 2003 (73) + > July 2003 (40) Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence Image result for cc-by-nc The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under this Creative Commons Licence. Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe': [ ] [Subscribe] Any problems, please let the IPKat team know. Feed me IPKat! [arrow_drop] [icon_feed1] Posts [subscribe-] [icon_feed1] Atom [arrow_drop] [icon_feed1] Posts [arrow_drop] [icon_feed1] Comments [subscribe-] [icon_feed1] Atom [arrow_drop] [icon_feed1] Comments Has the Kat got your tongue? The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for you * IP finance A Compelling Read: New Yorker Article on the U.S. Department of Justice's "China Initiative" * IPTango Creation of a Repository of Non-English IP Titles * jiplp Announcing the JIPLP Special Issue on the national transpositions of the DSM Directive: Call for Articles! * Afro-IP - african intellectual property law, practice and policies Six Steps for Value Creation in Heritage Brands * The SPC blog * SOLO Independent IP Practitioners BONZO DOG and the last men standing principle * At last ... the 1709 Copyright Blog 2019 - THE COPYRIGHT YEAR * MARQUES Class 46 Blog MoU on online advertising and IPR to be signed during Blockathon * MARQUES Out for the count... [c] * * * * Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Gooyaabi Templates Powered by Blogger.