Jason Allen, a 41-year-old designer of board games, recently spent over a hundred hours on Midjourney to create an image that ultimately won an art competition. However, his joy was short-lived as the U.S. Copyright Office denied his request to protect his work under copyright law, citing a lack of „human authorship“ and questioning the level of creativity involved.
Two years ago, Allen became captivated by the surrealistic landscapes generated by artificial intelligence that kept appearing on his Facebook feed. Intrigued, he began experimenting with text-to-image programs himself. In May of this year, he spent over a hundred hours instructing the image generator Midjourney to create a detailed illustration of women in Victorian dresses and space helmets standing in a futuristic royal court. The piece later won first prize in a digitally enhanced photography competition at the Colorado State Fair.
Despite his efforts, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Allen’s application for copyright protection, claiming that the work lacked human authorship and sufficient creativity. Allen revealed that he had written 624 different text instructions to guide the Midjourney software in creating the desired image, and then further edited the style, composition, colors, and tone. The decision was a blow to Allen, who expressed the challenges he faced in achieving the results he desired through the use of Midjourney.
Frustrated by the denial, Allen has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Copyright Office, seeking to overturn their decision. The ongoing legal battle has sparked a broader debate about the legality of companies collecting vast amounts of data from the internet to train AI software.
In a related development, a group of artists filed a class-action lawsuit in 2023 against AI companies like Midjourney, Stability AI, and Runway, alleging unauthorized use of billions of copyrighted artworks to train their AI models. The lawsuit has raised questions about the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights, with the U.S. Copyright Office grappling with the implications of AI-generated works on copyright law.
While the U.S. Copyright Office recently announced that it would not grant copyright registrations for works fully generated by AI, it acknowledged that works incorporating a level of human authorship and creativity could still be eligible for protection. This decision has implications for artists like Allen, who believe that their creative input, even when facilitated by AI tools, should be recognized and protected under copyright law.
Allen is not alone in challenging the U.S. Copyright Office’s stance. Other creators, such as Elisa Shupe, who used ChatGPT to write a book, have successfully obtained copyright protection for the selection and arrangement of text generated by AI. This nuanced approach recognizes the evolving nature of creativity in the digital age and the role of AI as a tool for artistic expression.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, Allen remains committed to his craft, operating his online gallery and selling art prints of illustrations created with AI tools. He sees himself more as a digital creator than an artist and advocates for the protection of AI-assisted creations under copyright law. For Allen, the ability to produce hundreds of works with AI assistance while safeguarding his intellectual property rights is essential for fostering creativity in the digital era.
In conclusion, the case of Jason Allen highlights the complex interplay between human creativity, artificial intelligence, and copyright law. As technology continues to shape the artistic landscape, the need for a nuanced understanding of authorship and ownership in the digital age becomes increasingly apparent. Allen’s journey serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges and opportunities presented by AI in the realm of artistic expression.