{"id":103826,"date":"2025-03-24T13:31:16","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T13:31:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/routenote.com\/blog\/?p=103826"},"modified":"2025-04-02T12:38:08","modified_gmt":"2025-04-02T11:38:08","slug":"ai-generated-works-cannot-be-copyrighted-in-the-us-but-theres-a-catch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/routenote.com\/blog\/ai-generated-works-cannot-be-copyrighted-in-the-us-but-theres-a-catch\/","title":{"rendered":"AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted in the US, but there\u2019s a catch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Court ruling confirms AI creations need human involvement for copyright protection.<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A major US court ruling<\/a> has reinforced that AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection unless there is meaningful human involvement. The decision was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and carries significant implications for artists, musicians, and the broader creative industry as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image credits: Mohamed Nohassi<\/a><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The case: can AI be an author?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The case centres around Dr. Stephen Thaler, who created a generative AI machine called \u201cCreativity Machine\u201d which generated an image titled \u201cA Recent Entrance to Paradise\u201d. Thaler then submitted a copyright application for this creation, listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author and himself as the copyright claimant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After multiple legal challenges, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court\u2019s ruling that AI-generated works do not qualify for copyright protection under US law without human involvement as the author<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why are AI-generated works not eligible for protection?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The ruling underscores a key principle: works cannot qualify for protection under US law without human involvement as the author. While the Copyright Act does not explicitly define \u201cauthor\u201d, interpretation of the Act shows that authors must mean humans. For example, the Act bases the duration of a copyright on the author\u2019s lifespan which is a concept that cannot be applied to machines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBecause many of the Copyright Act\u2019s provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration.\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/p>Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The ruling is \u201cconsistent with decades of copyright law\u2026 that to be copyrightable, an expressive work must be created by a human<\/strong><\/a>,” says Alicia Calzada, Deputy General Counsel of the National Press Photographers Association. In fact, the ruling aligns with previous decisions, such as when a selfie taken by a monkey was deemed to not be copyrightable due to a lack of human authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Thaler argued that this requirement stifles innovation and discourages AI-driven creativity. However, the court dismissed this and emphasized that works made by human authors who use AI for assistance can still receive protection. While questions arise over how much AI contribution is allowed for protection, the issue in this case is whether a machine can be the sole author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for the music industry?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For the music industry, this ruling could affect the rise of AI-created music flooding streaming services<\/a>. As purely AI-created works would lack copyright protection, it may provide less incentive to rights holders to exploit them commercially on streaming platforms. Combatting AI-generated tracks is a key focus of \u201cStreaming 2.0<\/a><\/strong>\u201d, but this decision may actively help reduce the number of AI tracks<\/a> uploaded to these platforms. Consequently, this will leave more royalties<\/a> in the pool for genuine artists. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another potential outcome is that artists could freely use AI-generated works as the basis for their own creations, since such works will lack copyright protection. However, this could depend on legal interpretations as AI continues to develop. Artists could still use AI tools in their creative process though<\/a>, as long as they contribute meaningfully to ensure copyright protection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
AI in the music industry: How artists can use AI in 2025<\/a><\/blockquote>