In the case of Thaler vs. The Register of Copyrights, Stephen Thaler attempted to secure a copyright for artwork created by his AI system. However, the US Copyright Office turned down his request. This decision was backed by the court, stating that copyright protections are reserved only for works authored by humans.
If “Thaler” rings a bell, it’s because he’s the same individual who has been pursuing patents for AI-created innovations in multiple countries, including the US, Australia, UK, and New Zealand. In a consistent trend, the judiciaries in these nations have determined that AI cannot be recognized as an inventor on patent applications. For a detailed overview of Thaler’s patent endeavors, check out this link: https://lnkd.in/gyA8uXQP
💡 REFLECTIONS
Through the Thaler trials, we now possess clear legal interpretations in some jurisdictions concerning the ability to copyright or patent AI-produced outputs, based on their respective local laws. You can also refer to more ongoing cases in the realm of copyright violations in my separate post here: https://lnkd.in/gzY_B9BG
On a speculative note, I’m intrigued about how legal systems will evolve with the rise of advanced autonomous agents 🤖:
â–ª We’ve already witnessed the emergence of software like AutoGPT and AgentGPT, suggesting that self-sufficient agents aren’t mere figments of our imagination. Although their current iterations might seem rudimentary, I’m optimistic about their future sophistication and ubiquity in the corporate world.
â–ª Envision a scenario where you direct an autonomous agent to execute specific tasks, leading to the unexpected generation of content (like coding, scripts, etc.). In such a situation:
How would one ascertain and demonstrate human involvement to claim copyrights?
What happens if the autonomous entity was a service offered by another company?
Might the legal framework eventually acknowledge AI as a potential trustee for safeguarding rights on behalf of its human overseer?
I’d love to know your perspectives.
