Copyright

• Summary

Shortly after filing patent applications for AI-generated inventions, in 2018, the Artificial Inventor Project (AIP) team filed an application to register copyright in an AI-generated work in the United States. 

The application was initially only filed in the United States because, unlike patents which are issued by patent registrars, in most jurisdictions copyright in protectable creative works subsists automatically without registration. That is the case in the United States, but the United States also has a voluntary registration system. Registration provides certain benefits to right holders, and registration is generally required to bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement. 

Different jurisdictions have different rules about the protectability of AI-generated works. For example, the United Kingdom amended its copyright act in 1988 to explicitly provide protection for AI- or “computer-generated” works. For such works lacking a traditional human author, the author is deemed or legally fictionalized to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. 

By contrast, the United States Copyright Office has had a “Human Authorship Requirement” since at least 1973 such that it will not register AI-generated works. 

The Copyright Office rejected the registration application, that rejection was appealed, and the case is currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were heard on September 19, 2024, and a decision is pending. 

We argued that nothing in the U.S. Copyright Act prohibits copyright protection for AI-generated works. Nothing in the Copyright Act requires human creation, and in fact it has explicitly allowed for non-human authors such as corporations for more than a century. We argued the Copyright Office’s policy was based on dicta (non-binding judicial statements) from cases predating AI creativity. We also argued that protecting AI-generated works is consistent with the purpose of the Copyright Act which is to promote the generation and dissemination of creative works, as protection will encourage the development and use of creative AI systems as well as investments in disseminating those works.

Below, the various filings associated with the case are listed. 

A registration application has also now been submitted in India, where it remains pending examination.