Read on Twitter
I've been a bit surprised that the Thaler decision is getting some attention, this is a completely expected and unsurprising result that doesn't tell us much about the wider copyright AI debates. Here's the decision. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This requires some background. Dr Stephen Thaler has been pushing the concept of AI patents for a few years now. He built a software called DABUS which made three inventions, and proceeded to apply for patent in various countries. law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/the…
He lost cases around the world on patents, as he's trying to claim that the AI itself is the inventor. Most legislation requires inventors to be human, hence the repeated defeats. He's had some court successes in Australia (overturned), and South Africa theconversation.com/in-a-world-fir…
He's only applied for copyright registration in the US because it is the only country with a registration requirement. The US Copyright Office denied that registration last year, and he decided to appeal in court. ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/tha…
Why do I say that the decision is unsurprising? Because just as with the patent cases, Thaler is trying to argue that the AI itself is the author, which makes his appeals much weaker. Other than Thaler, I don't know anyone who is arguing for that.
The court recognises that this is a simple decision, Thaler argues that the AI is the author, and that the property has passed to him. So the court didn't have to delve too deeply on that, dismissing it out of hand as the record shows that Thaler claimed the AI as the author. 
I have personally found some of the AI patent cases to be more interesting, and generating more interesting jurisprudence. When the history of AI IP is finally written, I suspect the Thaler copyright decision will be just a footnote.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
