Can Ownership be Claimed for Artificial Intelligence-Generated Works?

Today’s The Hindu | Editorial Page

By Arul George Scaria

2nd Nov 2023

#newspaperinlearning #artificialintelligence

Today’s The Hindu Editorial page, carries a very thought-provoking article on the question of attributing ownership and Intellectual Property Rights to AI-Generated works.

The author here, foregrounds a problem –

Can humans be given Copyright ownership over output generated by AI, autonomously or with inputs from humans?

The author then cites a recent instance from the US District Court -

A recent decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Stephen Thaler vs Shira Perlmutter is remarkable because it provides some insights on whether copyright can exist in work autonomously created by AI.

In this case, Mr. Thaler owned an AI system named ‘Creativity Machine’ which he claimed had autonomously created a piece of visual art.

The Curious ‘Case’ in the US Copyright Office on ‘Creativity Machine’ as the Author

In his application for copyright registration before the U.S. Copyright Office, ‘Creativity Machine’ was mentioned as the author of the work. Mr. Thaler also added that the copyright of the work would be transferred to him, as the owner of ‘Creativity Machine’.

The copyright Office rejected the application on the ground that the submitted work lacked human authorship. His pleas to the Office to reconsider its decision were also rejected on the same rationale. He challenged the rejection before the District Court subsequently.

‘Human Creativity’ is Essential for Copyright, says Court

The primary legal question before the Court was whether a work autonomously generated by an AI system could be copyrightable. After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions, case laws, and theoretical justifications for copyright protection, the court concluded that human creativity was essential to copyright protection.

The Term ‘Author’ Excludes ‘Nonhumans’

In a document entitled ‘Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence’, released in March 2023, the copyright office had categorically stated that “copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Fundamentally, the term ‘author,’ used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes nonhumans”.

Raghav AI Painting App as Co-Author: The Case in India

Compare the U.S. episode with the prevailing situation in India. In 2020, the Indian Copyright Office registered a work of art called ‘Suryast’, for which an AI system named “RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App” was listed as a coauthor.

In India: AI as Co-Author Accepted! AI As Sole Author Unaccepted!

The Copyright Office had previously rejected an application in which the same system had been listed as the sole author. While India has not effected any legislative changes in the Copyright Act 1957, the Copyright Office ignored the human authorship requirement in Indian copyright law when granting registration with an AI system as a co-author.

When the matter became controversial, the office sent a notice to the human co-author in the application declaring its intent to withdraw the registration. But the data from the Indian Copyright Office website suggests that the work concerned continues to remain registered.

The Copyright Office is also yet to articulate mandatory disclosure requirements on the use of AI or even initiate broader consultations on this important issue.

Summing up, the author says –

In sum, policymakers and courts in India also need to assume a more cautious approach against diluting the human-centricity in copyright law.