But the man’s friends do not give up the fight, they demand the rights of the algorithm.
The US Copyright Office has said that an artificial intelligence (MI) algorithm cannot obtain copyrights to the digital artwork you create. The agency rejected the founder of Imagination Engines, Stephen Thaler Frequent application. The American inventor and legal expert had been fighting with British jurists for at least three years to get MI out of copyright.
Thaler turned to the US Patent Office in a particular case: he wanted to file a copyright claim on a digital photo allegedly produced by a machine learning algorithm. According to Thaler, because it is Modern entrance to heaven It was created by a creator developed by the inventor, Creativity Machine, so the “copyright” belongs to him.
Officials see it differently
The agency readily admitted that it was possible that the image had already been generated by the algorithm without any human creativity in generating the image itself. However, the request cannot be accepted. Their argument was that current copyright laws protect only the fruits of intellectual work, namely those created by the creative power of the human mind.
The office may not register works produced by a purely mechanical machine or process that operates without the assistance or intervention of a human author. The law wrote that work must be made by a man, the agency wrote to Thaler’s old comrade in arms, To Ryan Abbott. (A legal professor at the University of Surrey provided the legal background to this case as well.)
This is the second time that the US office has rejected the inventor’s application with similar arguments. However, Thaler turned the case again. His constant struggle has been motivated by the fact that acknowledging copyright in AI would help enforce the fundamental goals of copyright.
The Creativity Machine: A Modern Entrance to Heaven (Pixel)
However, the Office described the arguments in Thaler’s second application largely as a political argument that did not refer to a judicial law that would call into question the Office’s interpretation of copyright law. Because US copyright law, in effect since 1976, requires human authorship, the work cannot be registered.
The board also rejected Thaler’s argument that he did the work for a man, saying that the creativity machine itself could not enter into a legally binding agreement to perform the task, and again, there was no question of human authorship anyway.
They already employ lawyers in four countries
The American scientist has been trying persistently in the United States, England, Wales, Australia, and even the European Union – with little success so far. The European Union Patent Office (EPO) and UKIPO (UK Intellectual Property Office) also decided in 2020 that AI cannot be a patent owner.
As the legal expert on the applications, Abbott described the current system as fraud, which would in principle have an interest in protecting the interests of inventors against the companies that hire them. Recognizing MI’s right to authorship, he said, would clarify a number of areas of ambiguity today.
We resume! The professor said in connection with the current decision of the Register Because AI is already capable of creativity even in the absence of a traditional human author. He believes that copyright protection for works created with artificial intelligence is vital to promoting the production of socially valuable content.
