AI’s Creative Ambitions: Dependent on Jurisdiction?
The U.S. Copyright Office Review Board has reportedly refused to register another work created by artificial intelligence (“AI”). This marks the fourth rejection to provide copyright protection over AI output following requests for reconsideration. As generative AI becomes more autonomous, American regulators continue to dig in their heels, reinforcing the unavailability of copyright for non-human works. Meanwhile, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) has reportedly recognized AI authorship by granting copyright protection for the very same work.
The impugned work is a two-dimensional computer-generated image entitled “SURYAST”, which was created by Ankit Sahni using the custom-designed software program RAGHAV. Sahni submitted a registration application in December 2021, listing himself and the AI software as authors. The work was created using a base dataset of Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night and a photograph taken by the applicant. While the original photograph was attributed to Sahni, the software was said to have contributed the “2-D artwork”.
The Review Board held that RAGHAV’s “interpretation” of Sahni’s photograph in another style was a “function of how the model works and the images on which it was trained on – not specific contributions or instructions received” from Sahni. RAGHAV was therefore not an “assistive tool” akin to a camera or photo editing software. For better or worse, CIPO has done away with the human authorship requirement. By granting registration, CIPO has theoretically provided RAGHAV the same rights and remedies that Sahni would receive under the Canadian Copyright Act.
The different approach in each jurisdiction emphasizes the contentious nature of the issue. Many have reportedly expressed concern over CIPO’s decision to register AI as an author, citing the fact that non-human copyright protection is antithetical to the public interest purpose of copyright law. For others, Sahni’s successful registration signals a new era that will spark further investment, innovation and creativity in both the art and AI sectors.
One thing is certain: these questions will only become more complex as the technology evolves and AI and copyright engage on deeper levels.
Author: Emily Groper, 2023/2024 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: istock.com/your_photo.
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…