Generative AI art made without human "creativity" cannot be protected by copyright laws

The US Copyright Office has confirmed that unless an author or artist contributes to the "creative process" of generative AI, it "cannot be protected by copyright" laws.

The report by the US Copyright Office affirms that copyright protection in the United States "requires human authorship", giving the example that photographs taken by a monkey, for instance, "could not be protected".

However, authors could "make the grade [to qualify for copyright] quite easily" as "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low".

"In most cases, however, humans will be involved in the creation process, and the work will be copyrightable to the extent that their contributions qualify as authorship," the report explains.

"It is axiomatic that ideas or facts themselves are not protectible by copyright law, and the Supreme Court has made clear that originality is required, not just time and effort. In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the Court rejected the theory that 'sweat of the brow' alone could be sufficient for copyright protection.

"The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be."

Repeatedly revising generative art prompts does not change the office's position, either.

"No matter how many times a prompt is revised and resubmitted, the final output reflects the user’s acceptance of the AI system’s interpretation, rather than authorship of the expression it contains," the report stated.

The team behind Catly, a pet sim announced at last month's The Game Awards, was forced to deny its debut trailer was created using generative AI after rumours began to swirl that the game may use blockchain tech or NFTs after some connected the studio's co-founder, Kevin Yeung, to other blockchain projects he is working on with a different team at TenthPlanet.