Jason Allen, a “synthetic media artist,” is appealing the US Copyright Office’s decision to deny copyright registration for his award-winning AI-generated work “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial,” claiming that the ruling fails to recognize the human authorship involved in creating the piece.
Ars Technica reports that the debate surrounding the copyrightability of AI-generated art has reached new heights as Jason Allen, the creator of the controversial work “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial,” appeals the U.S. Copyright Office’s decision to deny him copyright registration.
Allen’s piece, which won a state fair art competition, was created using the AI tool Midjourney. The Copyright Office rejected Allen’s application, stating that the work lacked sufficient human authorship, as it was primarily generated by AI.
In his appeal, Allen argues that the Copyright Office’s decision was influenced by negative media attention and public backlash, leading to bias and the consideration of improper factors.
He asserts that the Examiner failed to recognize the extensive human effort and careful direction he put into creating the image, which involved refining prompts through an iterative process that took over 100 hours and 600 prompts.
Allen contends that his use of Midjourney was not merely a matter of plugging in prompts and accepting random outputs, but rather a tool he used to bring his specific vision to life. He likens his process to that of a photographer staging a shoot or a movie director communicating their vision to a cameraman.
By crafting precise prompts and making creative decisions throughout the process, Allen believes he demonstrated the necessary human authorship required for copyright protection.
The case raises important questions about the future of copyright law in the face of rapidly advancing AI technology. As AI-generated art becomes more prevalent and sophisticated, it may become increasingly difficult for the Copyright Office to make authorship judgments.
Allen warns that denying copyright for AI-assisted works could lead to confusion and potentially bog down courts with disputes, while also stifling creativity and innovation in the art world.
Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney focused on copyright law for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), believes that the Copyright Office has been getting it right so far. Walsh argues that if the final image is generated by an AI system, it is not a work of human authorship and, therefore, not entitled to copyright. She cautions against granting monopolies on speech too readily, as it could create a new kind of copyright troll exploiting the uncertainty surrounding AI art.
As the debate continues, Allen remains determined to fight for the recognition of his work and the rights of artists who use AI tools in their creative process. He believes that copyright law should remain technologically neutral, allowing artists to embrace new technologies while protecting their works. The outcome of Allen’s appeal could set a significant precedent for the future of AI-generated art and its place in the world of intellectual property.
Read more at Ars Technica here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
