Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the issue of whether an AI-generated artwork can receive a copyright registration. The lower courts ruled against the applicant, who admitted that the work was entirely generated by his artificial intelligence system. In so doing, the trial and appellate courts agreed with the Copyright Office that copyrightable works must have human authors. The applicant and Plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, was previously denied a U.S. patent for an AI-generated invention based on the same “human-necessary” rationale; the Supreme Court also declined to review Thaler’s appeal on that matter. Until the Supreme Court breaks its silence, inventors and authors seeking protection for projects that use generative models should take care that their projects remain sufficiently “human” in the eyes of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office.
