Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law

In his application, Stephen Thaler stated that the related work was created autonomously by the "creativity machine" algorithm, and it is a work created by the "work made for hire" doctrine, and that he filed the application by being the proprietor of the machine following the assignment declaration he submitted. On the other hand, Thaler requested reconsideration of this decision stating that it is unconstitutional to require a "human authorship" requirement for registration and that such a requirement is neither included in the law nor the case law. In the subsequent examination, the Office again rejected these requests, reiterating its initial assessments and stating that Thaler did not provide evidence to prove that human-provided sufficient creative contribution to the relevant work or that the human intervention had taken place. Therefore, he argued that the Office's refusal grounds were based on old views that did not address current needs. Evaluating this second request for reconsideration, the Board stated that the law protects the fruits of intellectual labour.