1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted,…

Copyright Law

Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted, federal appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 19, 2025, 11:05 am CDT

A federal appeals court has ruled against a computer scientist who sought to copyright a work of art made by his artificial intelligence system, the “Creativity Machine.”

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler is not entitled to copyright artwork made solely by AI, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday.

Reuters and Courthouse News Service have coverage of the March 18 opinion.

“The Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being,” the D.C. Circuit said in a decision by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The holding makes is unnecessary to address the U.S. Copyright Office’s argument that the U.S. Constitution also requires human authorship of copyrighted material, Millett said. The appeals court also said Thaler had waived an argument that he could obtain a copyright because he made and used the Creativity Machine.

The D.C. Circuit said its decision does not prohibit a copyright when a work is authored by a human with the help of AI.

“The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being—the person who created, operated or used artificial intelligence—and not the machine itself,” Millett said.

Millett acknowledged that the Copyright Office has rejected some copyright applications based on the human-authorship requirement, even when a human is listed as the author.

“Line-drawing disagreements” over how much that AI contributed to a work aren’t issue in Thaler’s case, however, because he listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author, the appeals court said.

Thaler plans to appeal the decision, his attorney, Ryan Abbott, told Reuters.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Kim Kardashian sued for claiming ‘low-grade’…

Intellectual Property Law

Kim Kardashian sued for claiming ‘low-grade’ knockoff furniture was made by artist Donald Judd

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 28, 2024, 11:20 am CDT

Reality TV star Kim Kardashian claimed on video that she had purchased “Donald Judd tables” that were in fact “cheap knockoffs,” leading consumers to think that the source of the furniture was the nonprofit foundation dedicated to the artist’s legacy, according to a lawsuit filed this week.

The Judd Foundation sued Kardashian and Clements Design, which allegedly made the knockoff furniture that appeared in a 2022 Kardashian video made at the offices of Kardashian’s skin care company.

“If you guys are furniture people—because I’ve really gotten into furniture lately—these Donald Judd tables are really amazing and totally blend in with the seats,” Kardashian said in the video posted to YouTube.

Reuters, the New York Times, TMZ and USA Today have coverage of the March 27 lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit accuses Kardashian of false endorsement and Clements Design of trademark and copyright infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

“These poor-quality imitations masquerading as authentic Donald Judd tables and chairs harm the Donald Judd brand, as consumers will see the cheap knockoffs, be told they are authentic Donald Judd furniture, and erroneously associate those low-grade pieces with the Donald Judd brand,” the suit says.

Judd died in 1994.

Clements Design said in a statement published by the New York Times and TMZ its furniture had “obvious key differences” from Donald Judd designs, and the Judd Foundation had been unwilling to settle on reasonable terms.

A lawyer for Clements Design, John Ulin, told the foundation that the wood type and proportions of its table were different than the Donald Judd tables, according to the New York Times.

“They are different tables with different designs,” Ulin said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. BigLaw firm’s motion was copied ‘nearly verbatim,’…

Law Firms

BigLaw firm’s motion was copied ‘nearly verbatim,’ boutique firm alleges in copyright lawsuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 2, 2024, 12:15 pm CST

Updated: A boutique law firm alleges that Winston & Strawn infringed its copyright by filing a motion to dismiss that has a “striking resemblance” to the boutique firm’s motion.

Winston & Strawn copied the motion “nearly verbatim,” the Hsuanyeh Law Group, a Boston firm, claims in its Dec. 26 lawsuit.

“Defendants did not even rewrite their own introduction,” according to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Publications with coverage include Above the Law, which noted a social media post about the case by advertising attorney Rob Freund, and the Inner City Press.

The Rule 12 motion filed by the Hsuanyeh Law Group on Aug. 23 sought to dismiss patent infringement claims by Unification Technologies. Winston & Strawn, which represents a co-defendant, filed its Rule 12 motion the next day. The Hsuanyeh Law Group obtained a copyright for the motion Aug. 30.

The Hsuanyeh Law Group seeks actual and statutory damages, noting that the maximum statutory damage for copyright infringement is $150,000.

The suit includes a copy of a Dec. 15 letter signed by Brant C. Weidner, Winston & Strawn’s assistant general counsel.

Weidner said the threatened copyright claim “suffers from numerous substantive infirmities,” but he wanted to focus on the claim for statutory damages of up to $150,000.

Because the Hsuanyeh Law Group obtained the copyright after the alleged copying, the Hsuanyeh Law Group can only recover if the motion was “published” before registration, Weidner wrote. But filing a document in federal court through PACER doesn’t constitute publication within the meaning of the copyright act, Weidner said.

A publication requires commercial advantage, which doesn’t happen with a PACER filing, Weidner said. At best, the filing constituted a “public display” of the motion, he said. And even if statutory damages were available, the most that could be recovered would be $30,000 for nonwillful infringement, Weidner asserted.

“You will not be able to show willfulness in this matter,” Weidner wrote. “Indeed, no case has ever held that a law firm’s copying of a co-defendant’s motion constitutes infringement.”

Cases cited by the Hsuanyeh Law Group involved Westlaw’s use of publicly filed briefs, held to be fair use, and copying from a draft brief that hadn’t been filed, according to Above the Law.

A Winston & Strawn spokesperson declined to comment.

Updated Jan. 3 at 1:14 p.m. to reflect that a Winston & Strawn spokesperson declined to comment to the ABA Journal.