In a recent court decision, United States District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the stance of the U.S. Copyright Office that artworks created solely by artificial intelligence (AI) are not eligible for copyright protection.
This verdict came amid growing worries about the possibility of generative AI taking the place of human artists and writers.
With over 100 days passed since the commencement of the Hollywood writer’s strike, concerns have escalated regarding the potential takeover of scriptwriting by AI. Nonetheless, intellectual property regulations have consistently upheld that copyrights are exclusively bestowed upon creations originating from humans.
Howell’s ruling was a response to Stephen Thaler’s legal dispute against the government’s denial of registration for AI-produced creations. Thaler, the CEO of Imagination Engines — a neural network company — contended that AI meeting authorship criteria should be recognized as an author. As a result, the ownership of the work should belong to the owner of the AI system.
Howell disagreed, stressing the importance of humans as authors under copyright law. She pointed to previous cases like Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, which supported protection for ideas made by humans. Another case showed that even a photo taken by an animal couldn’t be copyrighted.
Howell discussed copyright motivating humans in creative endeavors. She noted that copyrights and patents were designed as safeguarded property, fostering science and arts by encouraging creation and innovation.
This verdict arrives amid ongoing legal discussions about AI firms using copyrighted content for training. Multiple lawsuits in California have been filed by artists claiming copyright violations, which might lead to AI companies needing to disassemble their language models.
This ruling shifts the conversation on AI and copyright. While AI-made art might not qualify for copyright, it underscores the significance of human creativity in intellectual property.
Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield has resigned from the Labour Party.
The 53-year-old MP is the first to jump ship since the general election and in her resignation letter criticised the prime minister for accepting thousands of pounds worth of gifts.
She told Sir Keir Starmer the reason for leaving now is “the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to”, despite their unpopularity with the electorate and MPs.
In her letter she accused the prime minister and his top team of “sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice” which are “off the scale”.
“I’m so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party,” she said.
Since December 2019, the prime minister received £107,145 in gifts, benefits, and hospitality – a specific category in parliament’s register of MPs’ interests.
More from Politics
Ms Duffield, who has previously clashed with the prime minister on gender issues, attacked the government for pursuing “cruel and unnecessary” policies as she resigned the Labour whip.
She criticised the decision to keep the two-child benefit cap and means-test the winter fuel payment, and accused the prime minister of “hypocrisy” over his acceptance of free gifts from donors.
“Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous,” she said.
“I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.”
Ms Duffield also mentioned the recent “treatment of Diane Abbott”, who said she thought she had been barred from standing by Labour ahead of the general election, before Sir Keir said she would be allowed to defend her Hackney North and Stoke Newington seat for the party.
Her relationship with the Labour leadership has long been strained and her decision to quit the party comes after seven other Labour MPs were suspended for rebelling by voting for a motion calling for the two-child benefit cap to be abolished.
“Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp – this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour prime minister,” she said.
Ms Duffield said she will continue to represent her constituents as an independent MP, “guided by my core Labour values”.