• by Wendy Davis , 7 hours ago

The Supreme Court this week turned away computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who had sought to copyright the picture "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which was produced by a generative artificial intelligence platform he developed.

The move leaves in place a decision by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously rejected Thaler's bid for a copyright on the grounds that the picture was not "authored" by a person.

When Thaler applied for a copyright, he listed the work's "author" as "Creativity Machine" -- the name he gave his generative artificial intelligence platform.

The D.C. Circuit Court judges based their ruling solely on that statement regarding authorship.

"The Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being," the appellate judges wrote in an opinion handed down last year.

The judges explicitly declined to rule on Thaler's argument that he should be considered the work's author because he developed the artificial intelligence tool. (The circuit court said Thaler waived that argument by failing to raise it to the Copyright Office.)

Thaler then asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal, arguing it's arbitrary to flatly deny a copyright to works authored by artificial intelligence.

"If Dr. Thaler were to randomly take photos throughout the day without any rhyme or reason, he would be the author of those photographs. By using an AI to create throughout the day, however, the Copyright Office has deemed the Work uncopyrightable," his attorneys argued. "No consistent principle disallows Dr. Thaler’s ownership of the work."

For now, the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene might not have a huge impact on future disputes, given that the circuit court's ruling leaves many questions unaddressed.

One of those questions is what happens when "humans and machines work together" to create something, Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman says.

He adds that the ultimate answer could turn on the facts -- including the extent to which people give artificial intelligence platforms specific instructions to produce art.

For now, he says, there are "too many potential scenarios" for the Supreme Court to meaningfully weigh in.