US Court Rules AI-Generated Art Not Eligible for Copyright

A US court in Washington, D.C., ruled that AI-generated art without human involvement cannot be copyrighted. Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's rejection of Stephen Thaler's application on behalf of the AI system DABUS. Thaler's attorney Ryan Abbott disagreed and plans to appeal. The decision reinforces that only human-authored works are copyrightable, highlighting legal challenges in generative AI.

A US court in Washington, D.C., ruled that AI-generated art without human involvement cannot be copyrighted. Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's rejection of Stephen Thaler's application on behalf of the AI system DABUS. Thaler's attorney Ryan Abbott disagreed and plans to appeal. The decision reinforces that only human-authored works are copyrightable, highlighting legal challenges in generative AI.

A US court in Washington, D.C., ruled that AI-generated art without human involvement cannot be copyrighted. Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's rejection of Stephen Thaler's application on behalf of the AI system DABUS. Thaler's attorney Ryan Abbott disagreed and plans to appeal. The decision reinforces that only human-authored works are copyrightable, highlighting legal challenges in generative AI.

This story involves 1 source and may affect public understanding of ai / copyright.