A U.S. federal judge has confirmed that works created exclusively by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection. The ruling rejects the lawsuit filed by Stephen Thaler, who sought to register an artwork generated by his machine as if the AI were the author. The court holds that current law does not extend to technologies that operate without human supervision, establishing that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for legal protection. This decision reaffirms that creativity and intellectual control must have a human origin, dismissing the recognition of AI as an independent creator under existing regulations. The decision underscores that, although machines can produce results, legal protection requires human mental conception and final creative decisions, as seen in historical cases involving photography. The judge explains that, unlike cameras that merely reproduce mechanically, protectable photography involves human choices regarding composition and lighting. Similarly, legal precedents had already denied copyright to images taken by animals, reinforcing the idea that only humans can hold such rights. This interpretation maintains human creativity as the irreplaceable core of intellectual property, limiting the scope of technological protection without direct creative intervention. This ruling is relevant to the open data movement because it defines the boundaries of intellectual property in the digital age. By denying protection to AI-generated works, it establishes that such content may be closer to the public domain or subject to freer use, provided they do not involve significant human authorship. For those advocating open access to information, this clarifies the legal status of data and digital assets created automatically, affecting how institutions manage licensing and access to materials generated by algorithms. It implies that, unless a human creatively selects or arranges the material, automated generation does not create a protected work, potentially facilitating debates over the freedom to use synthetic content.
Source: lapagina.com.svPublished on 2023-08-22
Related news
- The New York Times podría demandar a OpenAI: el tribunal ordenaría la 'destrucción' del conjunto de datos de ChatGPT
- El apalancamiento y el margen del mercado comercial de Argentina aumentan en medio de la agitación económica
- Las mujeres de C-LM tardan 2,65 años más que un hombre en adquirir una vivienda, según datos de brecha salarial de UGT
- Una enfermedad de la era victoriana prolifera en Escocia
- La IA no tiene derechos de autor, según una jueza en Estados Unidos