Exploring the boundaries between art and AI
In a landmark decision on December 11, 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office Review Board flatly denied a second request for reconsideration of AI-generated works of art. This case involving photographer Ankit Sahni and the RAGHAV artificial intelligence painting app delves into the complexities of authorship in the age of AI.
Ankit Sahni’s efforts began with an application to register the collaboration with RAGHAV in December 2021. When the Office asked for more details, Sahni ended up explaining RAGHAV’s “Neural Style Transfer” feature. Despite his comments, the Office rejected his application in June 2022, citing the blurred lines between AI and human creations.
Continuing his quest, Sahni made a second appeal in July 2023. He made three key points: That is, RAGHAV as a simple tool at his own creative command, the presence of traditional authorial elements in his process, and the originality of the resulting product growing beyond them. Early photo.
But the board remained stubborn. It was emphasized that creations by non-humans do not fall within the scope of copyright protection. It analyzes Sahni’s claims, separating the analysis of existing works and derivative authors. The committee concluded that RAGHAV’s autonomous image creation did not constitute human authorship.
The board dismissed Sahni’s notion of creative control and emphasized RAGHAV’s central role in the final work. Sahni’s involvement was acknowledged but deemed copyright insufficient. Claims comparing RAGHAV to photo editing software were also rejected, focusing on AI’s unique creation process.
This case highlights the Copyright Office’s position. AI creations require significant human creative effort to protect. Sahni’s case, which involved a higher level of human intervention than some of the rejected cases, still fell short of this threshold.
This ruling contrasts with a recent ruling by China’s Beijing Internet Court and illustrates the differences in jurisdiction when it comes to evaluating AI art. As AI continues to advance, efforts to define the limits of human-AI collaboration in terms of creativity are becoming more prominent. This case highlights important questions about the future of copyright and the delicate interplay of human and machine creativity in an AI-dominated environment.
While the advancements of AI in the artistic realm are undeniable, this example highlights the critical challenge of ensuring human creativity remains at the forefront in the age of algorithmic art.