Appendix A: Thaler vs Copyright Office (2023)¶

A.1. Points analyzed by the court¶

The court examined the following key points to reach its decision:

Interpretation of the term "author" in copyright law: the court analyzed the meaning of the term "author" in the context of copyright law. It concluded that, although not explicitly defined in the law, the term "author" implies a human creator.

Historical analysis of the concept of authorship: the court examined the legislative and jurisprudential history of copyright in the United States. It highlighted that the original intent of copyright law was to incentivize human creativity.

Evaluation of the role of AI in the creative process: the court considered the role of AI as a tool, rather than as an author. It established that the use of advanced technological tools does not preclude copyright protection, but still requires significant human creative intervention.

Examination of legal precedents: the court analyzed previous cases concerning works created without direct human intervention (such as alleged divine communications or photographs taken by animals). It concluded that these precedents support the requirement of human authorship.

Considerations on future implications: the court recognized the future challenges posed by the increasing use of AI in artistic creation. It suggested the need for further discussions and possible legislative adjustments to address these challenges.

A.2. Chronology of actions taken by Thaler¶

Creation of the work: Thaler used his AI system called Creativity Machine to generate the visual artwork A Recent Entrance to Paradise. The work was created autonomously by the AI system without direct human intervention in the creative process.

Copyright registration application: Thaler submitted a copyright registration application to the U.S. Copyright Office. In the application, he indicated the Creativity Machine as the author of the work. He requested to be registered as the copyright owner as the owner of the machine.

First Copyright Office refusal: the Copyright Office denied registration, stating that the work lacked the human authorship necessary for copyright protection.

First request for reconsideration: Thaler requested a reconsideration of the decision. He confirmed that the work had been generated autonomously by the AI and lacked traditional human authorship. He contested the Copyright Office's requirement of human authorship.

Second Copyright Office refusal: the Copyright Office confirmed the refusal, reiterating that copyright law is limited to "original intellectual conceptions of the author."

Second request for reconsideration: Thaler submitted a second request for reconsideration.

Final refusal by the Copyright Review Board: the Copyright Review Board confirmed the refusal of registration.

Legal action: Thaler brought a lawsuit against the Copyright Office in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He argued that the refusal of registration violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Court decision: the court examined the case and issued a ruling in favor of the Copyright Office. It confirmed that U.S. copyright law requires human authorship and that works generated autonomously by AI are not "copyrightable."

A.3. Key considerations of the court¶

Interpretation of the law: the court emphasized that the requirement of human authorship is implicit in the text of copyright law and in its legislative history.

Adaptability of copyright: it recognized that copyright has adapted over time to include new forms of creative expression, but always maintaining the requirement of human intervention.

Role of AI: it clarified that AI can be used as a tool in the creative process but cannot be considered an "author" under copyright law.

Future challenges: it recognized that the increasing use of AI in artistic creation will pose new challenges to copyright, suggesting the need for further discussions and possible legislative adjustments.

Limitations of the decision: it emphasized that the decision applies specifically to cases where the AI generates works in a completely autonomous manner, without significant human intervention.

This detailed analysis of the Thaler vs Copyright Office case offers an in-depth view of the legal and creative complexities involved in creating works with the assistance of generative AI, providing an important precedent for future discussions on authorship in the era of artificial intelligence.