As generative AI technology surges globally, the copyright battle between tech giants and traditional creators is intensifying. Recently, significant developments have emerged in the legal battles surrounding AI intellectual property rights in both the UK and the US: the US Supreme Court formally refused to hear an appeal regarding an AI-generated artwork, effectively sealing the fate of purely AI-generated works as ineligible for copyright protection; meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the British government, facing strong protests from numerous artists, decided...Postpone the promotionA controversial bill that would allow AI companies to use copyrighted content for training without consent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that "human authorship" is the cornerstone of copyright.
In the US case, the protagonist is computer scientist Stephen Thaler. He attempted to apply for copyright for the image "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" generated by his algorithm system, but was repeatedly rejected by the US Copyright Office.
After a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided to dismiss Stephen Thaler's appeal. This decision directly upholds the lower court's ruling and clearly conveys a legal standard: artworks entirely generated by artificial intelligence systems and lacking substantial human creative involvement do not meet the requirements for copyright protection.
In fact, the United States has a fairly consistent attitude towards AI in its intellectual property rights system. Not only has the Copyright Office issued guidelines requiring sufficient "human creative contribution" to be demonstrated in order to obtain copyright, but in the patent field, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have also ruled that AI systems cannot be listed as inventors of patents because they are not "people" in the legal definition.
British creators roar: Tech giants shouldn't "exploit" creativity for free.
The focus shifts to the UK, where the debate centers on the "source of training data" for AI models.
The UK government was drafting a data bill with a pre-existing stance (which is also the direction that tech companies like Google have been lobbying for) of using an "op-out" mechanism. This means that AI companies can legally use these protected materials to train algorithms unless the copyright holder formally objects.
However, after two months of public consultation, the plan was met with fierce criticism from publishers, filmmakers, musicians, and other members of the creative industries. Notable figures including singers Paul McCartney and Elton John publicly expressed their strong dissatisfaction.
Paul McCartney stated bluntly, "AI has its uses, but it shouldn't exploit creative people." Beeban Kidron, a member of the House of Lords, went even further, criticizing, "We refuse to hand over our work for free to help others build AI, and then pay those who steal it to rent it."
Faced with such a huge backlash, the British government has decided to "reject" the copyright bill and reconsider it. This AI bill, which was originally slated to be included in the King's Speech in May of this year, has now been postponed indefinitely. Relevant departments will reassess how to establish a "licensing-first" and highly transparent regulatory mechanism.
