Ai Art Consultancy

  United States: Human Authorship Remains Central The U.S. Copyright Office has reaffirmed that works created entirely by AI without meaningful human input are not eligible for copyright protection. However, if a human's creative contribution is evident—such as through the selection, arrangement, or modification of AI-generated content—copyright protection may be granted.   This stance was underscored by a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied copyright protection for purely AI-generated works, emphasising the necessity of human authorship.   United Kingdom: Debates Over AI Training and Copyright In the UK, proposed reforms to copyright law have sparked controversy. The government's plan to allow AI developers to use copyrighted materials for training without prior permission—unless creators opt out—has been met with strong opposition from artists and industry groups. Critics argue that this approach undermines creators' rights and lacks transp...

In the burgeoning world of artificial intelligence (AI) and creativity, a critical question has emerged at the crossroads of art and law: Can AI-generated art be copyrighted? This debate reached a pivotal moment with a recent U.S. court ruling, fundamentally shaping the landscape of AI art and intellectual property rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that artworks created by AI without human intervention cannot be protected under copyright law. This landmark decision reaffirms the longstanding principle that human authorship is an indispensable requirement for copyright. The ruling came in response to a case where the creator of an AI sought to have the AI itself recognized as the copyright holder. The court's decision underscores a clear legal stance: AI, in its current legal recognition, cannot replace human creativity in the context of copyright law. This decision has significant implications for artists, technologists, and legal experts in the...