L’autore di opera dell’ingegno non può essere l’intelligenza artificiale (novità amministrative dagli USA)

Si consolida l’orientamento che nega legittimazione alla privativa in capo all’algoritmo di Intelligenza Artiiciale, copyright o brevetto ivnentivo che sia..

Ora si pronuncia in tale sneo pure il  reclamo del US copyright office 14.02.2022, relativo alla composizione grafica “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”.

Si tratta sempre di uno dei tentativi dell’indomito dr. Stephen Thaler.

<<For this reason, the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices — the practice manual for the Office — has long mandated human authorship for registration. After enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act, the second edition of the Compendium was updated to reflect the Office’s understanding that human authorship is required by the law. See U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 202.02(b) (2d ed. 1984) (“COMPENDIUM (SECOND)”) (“The term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable,
it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.”), available at  https://www.copyright.gov/history/comp/compendium-two.pdf. The current Compendium retains this requirement and articulates its application in multiple circumstances where non-human expression raises unique challenges.
See COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 709.1 (automated computer translations); 803.6(B) (derivative sound recordings made by purely mechanical processes); 805.4(C) & 806.4(C) (human performance required for choreography and pantomimes); 808.8(E) (human selection of color in colorized motion pictures); 906.8 (machine produced expression in visual arts works, such as linoleum flooring); 909.3(B) (x-rays and other medical imaging); 1006.1(A) (hypertext markup language if created by a human being “rather than a website design program”). Although no
Compendium section explicitly addresses artificial intelligence, the Board concludes that Office policy and practice makes human authorship a prerequisite for copyright protection.
The Office’s position is supported by a recent report from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) addressing intellectual property issues raised by AI. USPTO sought public comment on whether “a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the involvement of a natural person . . . qualif[ies] as a work of authorship” under the Copyright Act. U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PUBLIC VIEWS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY at 19 (2020), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf. In its summary of responses,
USPTO noted that “the vast majority of commenters acknowledged that existing law does not permit a non-human to be an author [and] this should remain the law.” Id. at 20–21.

The Board agrees.>>.

E’ rigdettato anche la domanda bdsata sul work made for hire (creazione da parte del dipendente), non essendoci chiaramente alcun rapporto di lavoro tra la macchina e Thaler.

C’è già molta letteratura sul punto.

Per altri cenni v. mio post 01.12.2018 .