Tag: authorship

DC Circuit Affirms Human Authorship Required for Copyright

human

In a decision that is unsurprising but important, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that “authors,” as defined in U.S. Copyright Act, are human beings and not machines that can autonomously generate works. I say unsurprising because nothing in history or statute should have led the court to any other conclusion, and indeed the opinion can be summed up thus: “…the text of multiple provisions of the statute indicates that authors must be humans, not machines.”

Dr. Thaler, a computer scientist, developed a generative AI (GAI) he calls Creativity Machine, which autonomously generated a visual work for which he applied for a claim of copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. Thaler disclosed that the work was wholly created by the machine, and on the basis that copyright can only attach to works made by humans, the Office rejected the application. Thaler sued, arguing that the Office was asserting a policy not found in the statute or the constitutional foundation for copyright. He lost in the district court, and the appellate court has now affirmed that ruling. (See earlier posts.)

Specifically, the court cites several operative provisions of the Copyright Act that would be nonsensical if machines were “authors.” “Machines do not have property, traditional human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, mentes reae, or signatures,” the opinion states. This summary refers to the right to own any kind of property, duration of copyrights, inheritance of copyrights, jurisdictional enforcement of copyrights, incentive to create works, and the right and authority to transfer copyrights.

None of those rights or capabilities apply to non-humans, and non-humans do not have standing in court to adjudicate conflicts over such matters. Consequently, U.S. copyright law would unravel if machines were “authors,” which would, notably, moot Dr. Thaler’s claim that his GAI called Creativity Machine is legally the “author” of the visual work he sought to protect. “Numerous Copyright Act provisions both identify authors as human beings and define ‘machines’ as tools used by humans in the creative process rather than as creators themselves,” the opinion states. Imagine the opposite conclusion and Creativity Machine could be named as a plaintiff in an infringement suit. Chaos ensues, and not just for copyright.

As to Dr. Thaler’s theory that under the work made for hire (WMFH) doctrine, he could claim copyright in the work generated by the AI he owns, the court is clear that this misreads the principle. In plain terms, under WMFH, rights transferred to the hiring party must exist in the first place, but those rights can only be vested in a human being upon creation/fixation of a work. No human author means there are no rights to transfer to a hiring party.

Although the Thaler decision is not surprising, it is important because it reaffirms a core doctrine as both case law and policy evolve in response to GAI. By affirming the boundary that 100% machine-generated expression is not protected, this solidifies the framework in which courts to do what they often do in copyright cases—namely to separate protected expression from unprotected elements in a given work.

The more compelling and trickier question as to what is protected and not protected when an “author” uses a generative “machine” as a tool is now active in the District Court for the District of Colorado. As discussed in this post, artist Jason Allen presents a plausible argument that he used Midjourney as a tool to create and fix his mental conception of a visual work of expression. Arguably, Allen v. Perlmutter will be the first case to write early guidance for the use of GAI to create works that may be protected. As such, that outcome just might be surprising and important.

Photo by: Designer491

Thaler Suit Against Copyright Office Asks for Analog Reading of Statute

Last February, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the registration application filed by Stephen Thaler for a visual work entitled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler averred that the image was generated by an AI he designed called “Creativity Machine,” and on that basis, the Office affirmed the longstanding doctrine that copyright rights only attach to works of human authorship. In a series of cross motions, Thaler now argues that “non-humans have been authors under the statute for more than a hundred years.”

Broadly, Thaler asks the court for statutory interpretations based on proving a negative—namely that the Copyright Act does not explicitly state that an author must be human, or that an author cannot be non-human. His brief is peppered with examples in which the law does not expressly prohibit a non-human from having an “idea” or making creative “choices.” And he’s right. Nothing in the law makes such statements, but why would it? It is only very recently that law—and not just copyright law—must confront issues presented by sophisticated machines capable of performing functions ordinarily reserved for humans.

Prior to the present moment, it would have been absurd to affirmatively state that works of creativity or invention must be made by human beings. And it is frankly still absurd. Vehicular law does not explicitly state that the rules apply solely to human drivers (though we may have to address this one); marital law does not explicitly state that the parties must be human; and most relevant to this discussion, employment law does not explicitly state that non-discrimination and other rules of fairness apply only to human persons. Employment law is informative because Thaler’s primary claim of copyright in the visual work rests on the Work Made for Hire (WMFH) doctrine on the basis that “Creativity Machine” is the legal equivalent of an employee. But here, Thaler asks the court to read the law both strictly and metaphorically at the same time. Because nowhere in employment law are any rights vested in the analogous employee. For instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states:

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Title VII does not emphatically state that those qualities must describe human persons, but if we look to the definition of “persons,” we find …

The term “person” includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-­stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under Title 11 [originally, bankruptcy], or receivers.

So, if we are following Thaler’s supposedly rigorous statutory interpretation, we can end the discussion by noting that there is no mention of computers, algorithms, machines, robots, etc. to support the argument that “Creativity Machine” is an employable “person” as an operation of law. Indeed, even the non-human entities in the definition above do not exist except as various means to organize the work or interests of human persons, and this is relevant to the copyright question presented.

While it is true that entities like corporations can own copyrights, the rights themselves do not exist until the moment of fixation of a human’s conception and the result of a human’s effort. Until then, there are no rights which may be transferred to the entity—either by independent or employment contract. Human authorship is not removed from the production of the work by the administrative formalities entailed with corporate ownership. On the contrary, human authorship must occur in order for the rights to exist at all.

This same principle applies to Thaler’s semantic game alleging that pseudonymous or anonymous works become works of non-human authorship merely because the term of protection is no longer based on the lifetime of the author. This makes no sense. Does Thaler argue that works made prior to the 1976 Act were not works of human authorship simply because they were protected under fixed terms unrelated to the life of the authors? He is conflating administrative rules (which are admittedly more complicated than necessary) with the doctrine of human authorship, which predates those rules by a few centuries.

Simply put, there is no concept of copyright law anywhere in western culture in which the utilitarian purpose of incentivizing authors to produce and disseminate works is not intertwined with the principle that the fruits of intellectual labor are the property of the author as a matter of natural right. The hyper-utilitarian view often overlooks the natural rights vested in the author, but the bundle of rights codified in Section 106 of the Copyright Act are as intangible and violable as any other civil right articulated by statute.  And such rights do not exist without humans.

Thaler and others are free to invoke philosophical debate as to whether an AI can have “ideas” or make creative “choices,” and it’s all fine chatter for a round of drinks, but even if it could be proven that the AI is “conscious enough” to make a choice to create and how to create, this is irrelevant as a matter of law. And we do not even need to confront AI per se. An elephant can make a painting, and a circus can own an elephant, but the circus cannot claim copyright in the painting as a WMFH because neither copyright rights nor an employment agreement exists between elephant and circus. And this is because no rights—copyright or otherwise—exist for the elephant that give her standing in court.

Personally, I believe the courts have gone too far in blurring the line between corporate and human personhood—e.g., vesting Hobby Lobby, Inc. with the right of religious exercise, but even in that controversial case, human persons, as owners of a closely held company, remain at the center of the finding. This is not so in Thaler’s claim of copyright in the visual work at issue. “Creativity Machine” is not a “person” by any statutory definition and cannot, therefore, have agreed to an employment contract in which it was understood that the employee would produce visual works under the WMFH doctrine. It is an absurdity on its face scratching at pencil shavings of statutory meaning, and Thaler’s appeal to history does him no favors.

I suspect the courts will find Thaler’s reading of the law to be untenable and will further advise that only Congress can change the Copyright Act. And if Congress were to do so in this context, I would hope that they affirmatively state that authorship must be human. If elephants don’t have such rights, why should robots?

Robot image by: sarah5

Comparing AI Prompts to Button-Pushing on a Camera

Plenty is being said about AI systems that generate visual works, written works, music, etc. And plenty more will be said, especially now that lawsuits have been filed against some of the AI-generated image companies. In this post, I want to address a misconception about authorship in copyright law that may be warping the AI conversation. As I understand the argument, some AI proponents allege that the act of writing prompts is comparable to the act of pushing the button on a camera and, therefore, vests copyright rights in the proverbial “button pusher.”

Although it is possible to conceive a scenario in which this analogy might apply, it is important to first understand that the underlying premise (i.e., that button pushing establishes authorship in a photograph) is wrong. In fact, when photography emerged as the first machine-made work, it posed a challenge to copyright law that still provides an ideal context for discussing what it means to say that copyright protects creative expression the moment the author causes that expression to be fixed in a tangible medium. Note that the key ingredients are expression, an author, and fixation, and inherent to the process binding all three is an interval of human effort enabling the author’s concept (or vision) of the expression to be manifest as fixation.

With photography, the interval of effort may be stately or a mere fraction of a second, but copyright law does not discriminate between the photographer who carries a vision in her mind for weeks of preparation and arrangement and the photographer who captures a fleeting moment from real life. In both cases, triggering the shutter is the proximate cause of fixation,[1] but vesting copyright rights in the photographer is predicated on an assumption that, even in a fraction of a second, she made creative choices sufficient to find a modicum of original expression in the image.

Various Scenarios in Which It Is Not About the Button

In the case of a studio shoot with a lot of preparation, lighting, props, wardrobe, etc., the photographer may not even touch the camera very often. It may be mounted on a tripod with an assistant triggering the shutter from a computer or remote control while the photographer directs all the creative aspects that comprise the resulting images. Copyright holds unequivocally that this individual is the author of the photographs because it is his expression that is being fixed in each image, but the mechanical “button-pushing” is irrelevant except as a purely mechanical step in fixation.[2]

For the street photographer or photojournalist, the same principles apply, but copyright allows for the arguably metaphysical assumption that even in the tiny interval between seeing the real-life subject and capturing it, the photographer makes subtle choices that imbue the work with sufficient expression to be protected. Again, the button causes fixation but is not the basis of authorship, and this would be evident in the analysis of the content and qualities of the photograph, if it were to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

By contrast, if a truly accidental photograph is captured (e.g., by a camera accidentally dropped from the Eiffel Tower), there is no authorship in that image—not because a human did not push the button, but because there is no colorable nexus between the human’s mental conception and the resulting photograph. On the other hand, if a photographer intentionally drops a camera from the Eiffel Tower and triggers the shutter by remote on its way down, copyright attaches to those images—not because a human pushed the button, but because a human conceived of the series of falling photographs and arranged the circumstances by which they could be made.

Although it is important to note that cameras are not machines trained with a corpus of existing photographs, this last example may be the closest analogy to the prompt directing the AI generator (in its current state) to make an image. If the prompt writer has a general sense of the image she wants to produce, but there is still an element of chance about what the machine will make, the prompt writer may argue that she is no less an author than the photographer who intentionally allows some element of chance into the process of making his images.

While this premise sounds reasonable as a general proposition, what it really implies is a case-by-case consideration as to how much human expression exists in the resulting works. Even in the example of the camera tossed intentionally off the Eiffel Tower, the photographer can control certain qualities in the images and may even have a vision for how they are to be used, displayed, or distributed. He knows the characteristics of the camera and lens and can select settings with the intent to control some of the qualitative results in the final photos.

By contrast, the prompter directing the image-generating AI is arguably not in control of enough of the qualitative elements in the final image to claim authorship—at least not at the current state of the technology. Entering the prompt “A mermaid wrestling a sea lion in outer space in the style of Cartier-Bresson” may produce an image that checks each of those boxes, but the prompt writer is not controlling the qualitative choices that comprise the result. Composition, line weight, shading, lighting, texture, scale, proportion, etc. are all “selected” by the AI based on what it has “learned” from the millions of visual works fed into its code, so there is a critical disconnect between the human’s vision of “A mermaid wresting a sea lion in outer space in the style of Cartier-Bresson” and the interval of effort that fixes the image in a tangible medium.

At some future state of the technology, the human may prompt a draft image to be made and then prompt changes to the qualitative elements, at which point it may be tough to deny that there is authorship in the resulting work. If these technologies develop in this way—such that the prompter is essentially painting with words instead of a stylus—this anticipates that, for instance, a disabled individual could truly create visual works with her mind akin to the way Stephen Hawking wrote books. But in this paradigm, the AI does not present a unique challenge to the concept of authorship because the human is in control of sufficient expression in the work.

Dynamic Ethical Standards

Of course, this theoretical discussion assumes integrity among individuals who claim authorship in various works. The guy whose camera accidentally snaps a photo does not have to admit he played no role in its making, and AI currently presents a similar challenge. The issue of integrity is a hot conversation we’re having in response to generative AI—especially in academia where ChatGPT is already “writing” papers for students. Notably, few people would question the judgment that the student who turns in a paper “written” by an AI is a cheat deserving the same sanctions as if he were caught plagiarizing. Yet, somehow, when the material is a “creative” work, AI advocates argue that the prompter is an author of a visual work comparable to a photographer using a camera.

This dichotomy can only be reconciled by confronting the fact that certain uses of AIs are not only not authorship but are needlessly destructive to the very purpose of intellectual and cultural endeavor. The student who shirks writing his own paper learns nothing and so, potentially graduates from a program unqualified. Likewise, the prompter using an image-generating AI is not an artist and contributes nothing to the purpose of art. Thus, while there may be uses for these systems, their potential cultural value depends on more than technological development for its own sake.

Because these technologies are still new and still primitive relative to their expected capabilities, it is hard to predict where the more serious aspects of the narrative will lead. Some of the generative AIs are barely more than toys at the moment (e.g., turning profile pics into oil paintings), but what they will do a year from now, let alone five years, will inform how we address the issues—cultural, legal, and ethical. For now, though, I insist that no, prompting is not equivalent to button-pushing with a camera, even if button-pushing were as significant as many people think it is.

[1] This is true with digital photography. With film, one could argue that the latent image on the negative is not fixation until it is at least developed because it cannot be perceived by either human or machine reader.

[2] And there are likely to be further steps like retouching or printing, which may fix the final version of the image.

Photo by author.