Key Insights

• The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that artwork generated solely by AI is not eligible for copyright protection.
• This decision comes amid rising concerns about how artificial intelligence could take jobs from artists, writers, and other creative professionals.
• The decision also raises questions about using artificial intelligence to create content, no different from human-made content.
• The ruling could have implications for the future of artificial intelligence-generated art, as well as the broader debate about the role of artificial intelligence in society.
• The regulation of AI could benefit humans by protecting privacy and security, ethical use, and promoting fairness.

Can Artificial Intelligence really take your job? The question has plagued most if not all of us since the inception of artificial intelligence.

The capabilities of artificial intelligence became very popular in 2023 when tools like Chat GPT and Midjourney became available for public use.

Tasks that used to require hours and even days to complete became doable in less than a minute, with ordinary people having the power to become artists, music producers and writers at the click of a button.

However, under the hood, these Artificial Intelligence models are trained using existing art, text and music from other people who may have spent months or years producing them.

This leads to the question:

Is AI-generated content real and legal content? If it is, should this kind of content have copyright protection?

Apparently, the answer is no – According to U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.

Art Created Solely By AI Not Eligible For Copyright Protection?

According to U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in a recent ruling, the U.S. Copyright Office has taken a stand.

In recent reports, the copyright office now maintains that artwork generated completely by Artificial Intelligence is not eligible for copyright protection.

This decision by the court comes amid rising concerns about how possible it is for Artificial Intelligence to take certain jobs from certain people like artists, writers and scriptwriters, among others.

The decision was made right in the middle of hot debates as to whether it was appropriate for Artificial Intelligence corporations to train their models using protected material from artists and writers who didn’t give their consent.

Artists have filed several cases in Federal courts in California, alleging copyright infringement. And if these artists win, we may see AI companies being forced to disassemble their large language models (LLMs).

Hot Debates On The Position Of AI, Amid Hollywood Writer’s Strike

More than 100 days after the Hollywood writer’s strike first started, concerns continue to mount about studios using generative artificial intelligence to completely generate movie scripts (or at least the first draft).

However, copyrights have only ever been issued to works created by humans, according to intellectual property law. Does artificial intelligence-generated content count in any way?

According to Judge Howell, it doesn’t.

This ruling from the judge came after computer scientist Stephen Thaler argued in court, that a two-dimensional work of art produced by his AI program “Creativity Machine” should be covered by a copyright registration.

Judge Howell rejected Thaler’s request, stating that copyright law has “never gone so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating without any guiding human hand.”

This official ruling changes the conversation completely. It also establishes the fact that one of the core aspects of any kind of art is the presence of human creativity and respect for intellectual property.

The Real Issues With Generative and AI-Assisted Art

Generative art is one of the greatest forms of innovation that we as humans have come up with.

However, such an advanced form of technology is not without its challenges, with several cases of misinformation, bias, non-inclusion and copyright infringement coming up every now and then.

The rise of artificial intelligence-assisted art, if unregulated can lead to more cases of:

1. Misinformation and disinformation
2. Copyright infringement
3. Data privacy and security
4. Bias and
5. Job displacement, among others

Could The Ruling Be In The Favour Of Humans?

One of the first things to understand is that the regulation or control over how artificial intelligence is used, does not curb artificial intelligence in any way.

According to the case in court with artificial intelligence and generative art, the Copyright Office reiterated in March, that the majority of AI-generated works are not copyrightable.

However, artificial intelligence-assisted work may be eligible for protection in some circumstances.

For example, a human must have “selected or arranged” work produced by the artificial intelligence in a way that suggests some degree of human creativity, in order for it to qualify for copyright protection.

The regulation of artificial intelligence can also benefit humans, whether artistic or not, by way of:

• Protecting privacy and security.
• Ensuring ethical use.
• Promoting fairness and non-discrimination.
• Ensuring safety and reliability.
• Ensuring accountability.

In all, readily available generative artificial intelligence may be one of the key stepping stones for human ingenuity.

However, uncontrolled use of this technology, and a lack of copyright protection for the hard work of the artists who add some degree of creativity to their work, may stifle this ingenuity.

Disclaimer: Voice of Crypto aims to deliver accurate and up-to-date information, but it will not be responsible for any missing facts or inaccurate information. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile financial assets, so research and make your own financial decisions.

The post Human Ingenuity Wins the Race Over AI: US Judge Rules Against AI appeared first on Voice of Crypto.