Human Creativity in AI: The Foundation That Makes A Difference

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. The judge’s opinion stressed, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.” There’s been a consistent understanding in the courts that human creativity is “at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media,” the ruling stated.

Back in March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable, but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. Specifically, a copyright application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.

The criteria for “sufficiently creative” is still pretty blurry and will continue to evolve in court cases to come. However it does underscore the importance of understanding the fine line between AI's capabilities and the need for human creativity in that process. While AI can be a powerful tool for generating images and content, it's crucial to ensure that a creative team member oversees and guides the AI's output to ensure the resulting work is sufficiently original to qualify for protection.

We at Mosaic agree. We are leveraging and experimenting with AI in different ways internally across our business and for our clients. ?It's helping us shape new experiences and ideas we couldn’t have imagined before. While it can do many amazing things, what AI can’t and won’t do is walk out the door and inspire our clients with what's possible. We know it's the human that makes the difference, and this ruling is a big step in starting to prove that out.?

Authored by:

Dan Berzen, Creative Director & Brad Higham, Director of Strategy