The Limitations of Copyright: Why Generative AI Art Lacks Human Creativity Protection
Regularly modifying prompts does not alter the stance of the US Copyright Office, either
The US Copyright Office has stated that unless a creator or artist engages in the “creative process” of generative AI, it “cannot be safeguarded by copyright” regulations.
The report by the US Copyright Office emphasizes that copyright protection in the United States “necessitates human authorship”, noting that images produced by a monkey, for example, “could not receive protection”.
However, creators may “qualify [for copyright] fairly effortlessly” as “the necessary level of creativity is quite minimal”.
“In most instances, nevertheless, humans will partake in the creation process, and the work will be copyrightable to the degree that their contributions are deemed authorship,” the report clarifies.
“It is a given that ideas or facts themselves are not eligible for copyright protection, and the Supreme Court has established that originality is essential, not merely effort and dedication. In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the Court rejected the notion that ‘sweat of the brow’ alone could suffice for copyright protection.
“The vast majority of works qualify easily, as they exhibit some creative essence, ‘regardless of how crude, modest or obvious’ it may be.”
Consistently altering generative art prompts does not change the job’s classification either.
“No m