A feather in humanity’s cap in the battle over who owns art created using artificial intelligence (AI).
Skating on a mountain? Artists take generative AI to court
A court has ruled that a work of art generated solely by AI, without human intervention, does not qualify for copyright protection, part of a growing controversy over the use of AI in creative works.
“The most tangible benefit of this ruling is the opportunity for peace of mind for those in artistic communities who have fought against generative AI from the beginning,” Solomon Blair, head of creative product development at collaborative art platform Magma, told Lifewire in an email interview. “While many artists believe that the problems with AI are solely related to its unethical training practices, another component that is much less discussed is the simple truth that people place far more value on works of art that require time, patience, skill, passion, and most importantly, human engagement.”
A judge confirmed in the ruling that copyrights can only be granted to works created by human authors. The decision upholds the Copyright Office's rejection of an application filed by computer scientist Stephen Thaler.
