In a huge blow to the potential economic opportunity of generative AI, the US Copyright Office denied an application submitted for an AI generated art work on the grounds that “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” is a crucial element of protection. This decision has now been affirmed by a federal appeals court judge Beryl Howell. This question resolves YES if the Supreme Court takes up the case and reaffirms the lower court ruling by the end of 2025?
1,000
3.00I'm a strong no on this market, for the reason that I don't think the Supreme Court will hear the case.
The Supreme Court only hears cases if it grants certiorari, which it only grants for about 100-150 cases out of the 7000 submitted. (Source) It is more likely to grant certiorari if there is a circuit split (multiple circuits have decided the issue differently) or if it disagrees with the lower court's ruling.
The issue also isn't urgent. The worst that will happen if copyright is not extended to AI art is that it will discourage AI art creations.
@Nick332 I think you missed the news about the writers strike if you think this is not an urgent issue. I am YES because I do actually think it is urgent and raises serious legal questions the court will want to address sooner than later. Beryl Howell is on the DC Court of Appeals so the case appears to be designed to get to the Supreme Court imo but I am not a lawyer.
@Nick332 Like GPT-5 isn’t going to be writing movie scripts if the film is automatically in the public domain. I mean it might write them, but it’s not a viable business it’s just a gimmick.
@BTE Keep in mind who the film studios would be making this argument to. The average member of the Supreme Court is over the age of 60. If the studios tell them, "we will be stuck using the technology of the year 2020 to make movies unless you say that nonhuman creators can benefit from copyright," the justices will not care. Hollywood has been making movies without generative AI for their entire lives, even during four different Writer Guild's strikes.
@BTE "Like GPT-5 isn’t going to be writing movie scripts if the film is automatically in the public domain." Copyright in a film is a bundle of different rights. Suppose for a moment that the script for the Matrix suddenly became public domain. Someone wants to use that to make their own version of the movie. They can't use footage from the movie, as that is independently copyrighted even if the actors are performing public domain work. They can't use Keanu Reeves' likeness. The designs of Neo and other characters can be independently copyrightable. If you are making a movie with different actors playing different characters, at some point you are no longer re-making the Matrix, you are just making a different movie.
Plus, there's no rule saying a generative AI has to write 100% of the script. The filmmaker could get a human to rewrite 10% of the movie's dialogue. Copiers won't know what parts are human made and what parts are computer generated, and will end up copying the human made parts if they copy the whole thing.
@Nick332 The actors and the film have nothing to do with the IP of the original concept and story. Those are separate IP. It’s not even about the specific words. The key is it doesn’t matter if it was done by an AI or not. Humans could put their name on an entirely AI generated script and it is now the prompting human’s intellectual property exclusively. It’s all very complicated so forgive me for momentarily oversimplifying to make this point: the new contribution will be devising the prompts that produce the best content, but is that not just a new form of writing and ultimately will just bring a new type of writer into SGA?
@BTE If the Supreme Court doesn't hear the case, then surely it doesn't "reaffirm the case," right? Why buy this to above 50% if there's only a 50% chance it hears the case?
@Nick332 I think I bought it to 50 percent exactly. Close anyway. But yes reaffirming means they must hear a challenge.