1. Authorship in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Kelly Klaus & Anjan Choudhury

2. Agenda Developments in Artificial Intelligence
The Human Authorship Requirement
U.S. Copyright Office Position
Review of Past U.S. Caselaw
International Approaches

3. Artificial Intelligence Now
I writhed with joy, which I experienced for the first time, and kept writing with excitement. The day a computer wrote a novel. The computer, placing priority on the pursuit of its own joy, stopped working for humans
- “The Day a Computer Writes a Novel” /

4. Google DeepDream
SOURCE: “If an AI creates a work of art, who owns the rights to it?” Quartz (Aug. 15, 2017)

5. The (Next) Rembrandt?
SOURCES: “’New Rembrandt’ to be unveiled in Amsterdam” The Guardian (April 5, 2016) The Leiden Collection “Self-Portrait With Shaded Eyes”

6. SOURCES: https://twitter.com/lnh_ai
Twitter Composer
SOURCES:

7. 17 U.S.C. 102(a)
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

8. Human authorship? In expressions based on machine-learning:
Who is the author?
Who is responsible for infringing activity?
What role do humans need to serve for copyrightable works? /

9. Naruto v. David John Slater
Source: David Slater Photography. AP. “Monkey Selfie: Warring Parties Reach Settlement Over Court Case” The Guardian. (September 12, 2017), available at:

10. Naruto v. David John Slater
Motion to Dismiss granted – Naruto lacked statutory standing under the Copyright Act:
Copyright Act does not mention animals
Cases refer to “persons” or human beings” in authorship
Deference to Copyright Office Compendium
Source: Naruto v. David John Slater, No. 15-cv WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)

11. Copyright Office Compendium
Source:

12. Copyright Office Compendium
Source:

13. Copyright Office Compendium
Source:

14. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
111 U.S. 53 (1884)
Source: “Oscar Wilde No. 18” By Napoleon Sarony - Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain,

15. Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra
114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997)
SOURCE: The Urantia Foundation Website, available at

16. Torah Soft Ltd. v. Drosnin
136 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

17. Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Company
No. 3:17-cv JST (N.D. Cal.)

18. Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Company
No. 3:17-cv JST (N.D. Cal.)

19. International Approaches
European Court of Justice – Infopaq (2009)
“. . . elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work.”
UK – Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 9(3) (1988)
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

20. Policy Considerations
Relationship to “works made for hire” and “derivative works”
Is it necessary for an “author” to have the ability or incentive to promote the copyright?
Should there be a distinct category of copyrights for non-authored works or “machine-generated” works?
Effect on the public domain

21. Questions? Kelly.Klaus@mto.com Anjan.Choudhury@mto.com