Judges Find AI Doesn't Have Human Intelligence in Two New Court Cases
Source: Slashdot
Stephen Thaler Copyright Case
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit filed by artist and computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to copyright an artwork created by an AI bot he invented. The Court’s refusal left intact a 2023 ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which held that works created by non‑humans cannot be copyrighted.
Judge Patricia A. Millett cited longstanding Copyright Office regulations requiring that “for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.” The district court had previously rejected Thaler’s argument that the Copyright Office’s human‑authorship requirement was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court’s inaction effectively upheld that reasoning.
The columnist notes that AI‑generated results should not receive the same protections as human‑generated material:
“The AI bots are machines, and portraying them as though they’re thinking creatures like artists or attorneys doesn’t change that, and shouldn’t.”
“Everything an AI bot spews out is, at a more than fundamental level, the product of human creativity.”
Bradley Heppner Claude AI Case
Bradley Heppner, indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly looting $150 million from a financial services company he chaired, consulted the AI system Claude (developed by Anthropic) for assistance with his defense strategy. Heppner’s lawyers argued that the written exchanges with Claude should be protected by attorney‑client privilege and the work‑product doctrine because the information originated from his lawyers and was shared with them.
Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected that argument:
- No attorney‑client relationship – Claude is not an attorney, so the communications are not privileged.
- Lack of confidentiality – Anthropic’s terms of use permit the collection and disclosure of both user queries and AI responses, undermining any claim of confidentiality.
- Not legal advice – Heppner was not seeking legal advice from Claude; when prosecutors tested the bot, it responded that it could only “consult with a qualified attorney.”
The judge’s ruling underscores that AI‑generated communications do not automatically inherit the protections afforded to lawyer‑client interactions.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.