双语动态｜AI作品又被拒绝版权登记？看美国版权局如何回应

向上滑动阅览

It is clear that the Work was not generated by Midjourney through the mere input of a few prompts. The creative selection and arrangement of elements in the image were entirely directed by the Plaintiff, who meticulously crafted the instructions. 

After each output was generated, much like a director requesting multiple takes of each scene from a cameraman, Plaintiff made the creative decisions on whether or not to retain, remove, enhance, or alter the elements present in the output, or to add new ones. Midjourney, lacking autonomous creativity, simply executed the detailed guidance provided by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's extensive effort and careful direction were crucial in creating the image, far surpassing the role of the AI tool.

Here, Allen’s selection, coordination, and arrangement of elements resulted in the creation of the Work. The law recognizes authorship even if the final product is created “directly or with the aid of machine or device.”

The Copyright Act explicitly acknowledges that works created with the aid of machines or devices can be protected, emphasizing the importance of human creative input in the process. 17 U.S.C. 102(a).

Plaintiff conducted extensive testing of the outputs generated based on his prompts. Through 624 iterations, he noted the results produced by each word and its placement within the prompt. By studying the AI's behavior, he learned when Midjourney focused on specific parts of his instructions and when it ignored them altogether. 

He realized that guiding the AI to incorporate all elements required a process of trial and error, akin to a director working with a cameraman. Just as a cameraman needs repeated instructions on what to focus on, Midjourney needed precise and repeated guidance. During his experimentation, Plaintiff developed a "writing technique" for crafting effective prompts, ensuring the AI accurately captured his vision. 

On January 24, 2023, a First Request for Reconsideration was submitted,pointing out that the Examiner misapplied the “human authorship” requirement; Copyright law focuses on the origin of the idea expressed; Mr. Allen contributed original authorship to create a unique work; 

AI tools should be treated like other tools available to artists; the Examiner considered improper factors, such as the publicity surrounding Mr. Allen's Colorado State Fair victory, which was controversial due to the AI tools used; and numerous public policy reasons required registration of the Work.

On December 13, 2022, the Copyright Office initially refused registration, noting that “all of the pictorial and graphic content within the deposit is attributable to the AI-your client did not paint, sketch, color, or otherwise fix any of the deposit.

 As for your position that your client is responsible for the AI’s results, in our view this does not define human author and authorship as we understand it. Only human authorship should be deposited and claimed, and you have not done this.”

According to the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, "the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."

On June 6, 2023, the Copyright Office continued their Refusal, offering to allow registration of the prompts and Photoshop enhancements, but excluding the portion of the Work created using the Midjourney and Gigapixel AI tools.

The Office further incorrectly noted that “Mr.  Allen had no control over how the artificial intelligence tool analyzed,   interpreted, or responded to these prompts. Nor did he exercise any control over the actual creation, development, or execution of the image that Midjourney rendered on his screen.Simply put, the resulting image was the output of the artificial intelligence technology, and your correspondence does not identify any specific creative authorship in this image that can be attributed to Mr. Allen.”