Copyright for Automated AI Works: How the Human Exceptionalism Argument Fails in Theory and Practice

In 2023 the US Copyright Office denied a designer copyright over her AI-generated illustrations, despite proving the personal direction and decisions over the final images. In the same year, a Chinese court protected a man's AI-generated image, since he proved the personal direction and decisions over the final image. While both decisions recognized the central role of human intervention for granting copyright, the US decision considered that the designer's control over the AI tool's output was not enough to make her intellectual vision the cause of the actual output, breaking the required link between an author's creativity and the work. Should not AI creations be granted copyright when sufficient human direction has taken place? Is this relationship between AI tools, their users and AI creations like the relationship between a photographer, the camera and the photo? Are both deserving of copyright? Or do AI tools incorporate too many features outside the users' control to make them the authors? If so, why are these features important enough to prevent the user from being the author, but at the same time not enough to grant authorship to the AI that created them?

Lees verder:

• Copyright for Automated AI Works: How the Human Exceptionalism Argument Fails in Theory and Practice door Guillermo Estupian-Villegas in Journal of AI Law and Regulation