According to US officials you cannot copyright AI-created artwork.

On July 17, 2019, the United States Copyright Office released a statement that states that artificial intelligence (AI)-created artwork cannot be copyrighted. The statement is a response to inquiries from the public about the copyrightability of AI-created works. The Copyright Office clarified that “the act of creating a work using artificial intelligence or machine learning does not by itself create a new work of authorship. A Copyright Office representative stated that the Copyright Act protects both published and unpublished works.

On Tuesday, United States officials ruled that artificially-intelligent artwork cannot be copyrighted. The decision came as a result of a lawsuit filed by artist Adam Hadjih, who alleged that the software company Google had copied his work. The officials determined that the AI-created artwork is not “a product of [the artist’s] own creativity,” and therefore cannot be copyrighted. This ruling could have far-reaching implications for the art world, as AI-created artwork becomes increasingly prevalent.

The US Copyright Office once again rejected attempts to copyright works of art created by an Artificial Intelligence System. Stephen Thaler tried to copyright a piece titled A recent Entrance to Paradise. He claimed in a second request to reconsider a 2019 ruling that USCO’s “human authorship” requirement was invalid.

The agency’s latest ruling was noticed by. It accepted that the work was created using an AI (which Thaler refers to as the Creativity Machine). Thaler applied for the registration of the work “as work-for-hire by the Creativity Machine owner.”

The office stated that the current copyright law does not protect “the fruits of intellectual labor.” It also said that the office won’t register works that were “produced by machines or mere mechanical processes” without human intervention.

According to the agency, Thaler did not provide any evidence that A New Entrance to Paradise is the result of human authorship. The agency also stated that Thaler was unable to convince the USCO’s to “abandon a century’s worth of copyright jurisprudence”, i.e. to alter the rules.

The Supreme Court has “uniformly limited” copyright protection for creations by human authors. Lower courts have “repeatedly rejected efforts to extend copyright to non-human creations,” as in the case of photos taken by monkeys.

Thaler has tested copyright and patent laws in many countries. Thaler tried to get DABUS, an artificial intelligence, as the inventor of two patent applications. The US Patent and Trademark Office and UK Intellectual Property Office rejected the applications as the credited inventor was not human. Appeals were filed against these rulings, as well as those in Australia and Germany.

A judge in Australia decided last year that AI-created patentable inventions are eligible for patent protection. South Africa granted Thaler a patent last year for one of the products. It noted that “the invention was autonomously created by an artificial intelligence.”

As technology rapidly evolves, so too does the art created with its help. In recent years, there has been a surge in artwork created through artificial intelligence (AI) – but what is the value of this work? Is it considered creativity, or is it simply a product of code?

This article discusses the US officials’ assertion that artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be copyrighted. The officials argue that AI-created artwork is not an original creation, but instead is based on the programmer’s code and design. They claim that copyright law only protects original works and that AI-created artwork does not meet those criteria. However, some artists and experts disagree with this assessment, arguing that AI can create unique and innovative works of art.