The Latest Breaking News from Stephen Thaler

American copyright legislation currently invokes a ‘human involvement’ criterion. But judging by the way smartphones have trivialised the ‘craft’ of photography, something has to give

Judge rules that AI-generated art is not protected by copyright. "Human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim"

The legal ruling probably won't be the final word.

From Thaler v. Perlmutter, decided Friday by Judge Beryl Howell (D.D.C.): Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns a computer system he calls the "Creativity Machine," which he claims generated a piece of visual art of its own accord. He sought to register the work for a copyright, listing the computer system as…

Lawmakers are beginning to consider ways in which artificial intelligence systems are involved in inventive processes like discovery of new drugs, and how the use of such technologies affects what is, and is not, patentable.

Lawmakers are beginning to consider ways in which artificial intelligence is involved in inventive processes like discovery of new drugs.

If an artificial intelligence (AI) machine can be named as an inventor for a patent, pet cats could be next, lawyers said at the United Kingdom's top court, arguing only humans can be inventors in law.

The question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) can invent is nearly 200 years old, going back to the very beginning of computing. Victorian mathematician Ada Lovelace wrote what’s generally considered the first computer program. As she did, she wondered about the limits of what computers could do.

From Thaler v. Vidal, decided today by the Federal Circuit (Judge Tony Leonard Stark, joined by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judge Richard Taranto): This case presents the question of who, or what, can be an inventor. Specifically, we are asked to decide if an artificial intelligence (AI) software system…