This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
By four. Ah, there's mister Midnight Jack Devil.
Oh, good evening night, owls, and thank you for allowing me into your living rooms.
You're meddling the things you don't understand who, ladies.
And gentlemen, please stay tuned for a live television first, as we attempt to commune with the Devil.
The horror movie Late Night with the Devil is about a seventies talk show host who keeps the cameras rolling during a live satanic incident, unleashing evil into the living rooms of viewers. It sounds scary, right, but what actually scared a lot of viewers more was the film's use of AI to generate artwork used in cutaways linking segments of the show. The social media backlash even included calls
to boycott the movie. Of course, the use of AI in films and television has been a hot button topic in Hollywood, witnessed last year's strikes, where it was an obstacle to reaching deals with the writers and actors' unions, And now a federal court has issued the first ruling of its kind on whether works generated by AI. In this case, an artwork can be copyrighted. The DC Circuit Court ruled unanimously that human authorship is required to get
copyright protection for a work. Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katin Yutchen Rosenman. So Terry tell us about this work created by a computer scientist.
Well, Jue, we talked about this in a past show, way back when this whole issue was still percolating in lower courts, and now we have the first appellate court decision on whether or not artificial intelligence can create works that can be copyrighted. And to refresh everyone's memory, this involves a computer scientist by the name of doctor Steven Taller, and he came up with his own generative artificial intelligence,
which he has dubbed the Creativity Machine. And just so everybody understands, AI gets used in a lot of misleading contexts and commercials and advertising. Nowadays, real artificial intelligence is called generative AI because it's capable of learning and it improves itself without human interaction. And so doctor Toller came up with this creativity machine, and he asked it to paint a picture for him and rendered a lovely work, multi colored work, what appeared to me to be a
garden scene. But doctor Toller gave it the name A Recent Entrance to Paradise, and he printed that off a printer. He took it to the US Copyright Office and filed an application to register that work for copyright registration purposes, and on the form said it was created by this creativity machine. Not surprisingly, the US Copyright Office denied that application for registration. And by way the historical background, this
didn't come as a surprise to anybody. Way back in nineteen seventy three, the US Copyright Office, in its internal regulations announced that only humans can obtain copyright registrations. So this is a really longstanding position of the Copyright Office. It's not something unique to this case or unique to
artificial intelligence or the current trend in AI. If your application is denied by the Copyright Office, you have a right to appeal that decision to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, because the Copyright Office is headquartered in DC, and doctor Toller did that. The District Court judge who was assigned that case agreed with the US Copyright Office that only humans get copyrights and
affirmed the decision by the US Copyright Office. Doctor Toller appealed from that District Court decision to the Federal Pellet Court for the District Columbia, which is called the United States's Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which coincidentally is the court that I was a law clerk on. And we get a decision in that case finally from the DC Circuit, and the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court, which in turn had affirmed the US
Copyright Office. The DC Circuit agreed with everybody else who had looked at this and said that copyright registrations can't be granted to robots.
And so this was not a surprising decision, right that the Copyright Act requires a human being.
It certainly wasn't a surprise to me. I think the consensus was the case would come out this way, and it's really driven by the factual predicate. Doctor Toller was unequivocal in telling the Copyright Office and every step on appeal that he was not the creator of this drawing, that it was the creativity machine, a generative AI that had rendered the drawing. So there was no dispute on the facts. There was no line drawing to be done. There's no gray areas, had a nice, crisp, clear presentation
of that central fact. Given that lack of dispute on facts, it was really then driven by the law. And the interesting thing about the DC Circuit's opinion, which differed from the Copyright Office decision in the District Court decision, is a laser like focus by the DC Circuit on the techs of the Copyright Act in nineteen seventy six. And this is sort of the trend in appellate courts and the Supreme Court these days. What is referred to by lawyers as textual analysis. It is no longer some right
wing theory propagated by Justice Scalia. It is this concept of textural literalism has just seized the appellate courts. In the Supreme Court, you see both the so called liberal justice of the Supreme Court and the conservative justices on the Supreme Court agreeing that you apply this sort of
textual analysis whenever there's a statute of Constitution up. This is a sea change from twenty years ago, and here you see it being done by the DC Circuit in connection with this case and what they do that the DC Circuit marched through the Copyright Act and they said, you know, there's a distinction in the text of the
Copyright Act between machines and authors. And they laid out that themes don't own property because under the Act, copyrights are property and authors get to own copyrights, but machines don't own property. Machines don't have a lifetime because copyright registrations are measured in part by the lifetime of the author plus a certain number of years. But machines don't have a lifetime. Machines have no errors. There's nobody who inherits for a machine in part because it doesn't have
a death, doesn't have a lifetime. And yet there's a provision in there that says the errors of authors obtain their rights, So how do you account for that? And then there's also provision in the text about the nationality and domicile of authors. Yet machines don't have nationality, machines
don't have domicile. Indeed, the court pointed out that in the text of the Copyright Act nineteen seventy six, every time a machine is referenced, it is as a tool being used by human authors, and they thought that was telling. And there's express reference to computer programs. Computer programs don't get to register themselves. They're simply a tool used by human beings to create works. And they thought that this distinction between machines and authors in the text was determintive here.
And therefore they came to the conclusion. And if you follow their logic, if you grew with the logic that we followed, the text seems inescapable that an author for purposes of copyright has to be a human being.
Coming up, what about works created by input from a human and AI? This is Bloomberg. A unanimous DC Circuit court has ruled that copyright protection requires human authorship, a setback to efforts seeking intellectual property protection for AI generated creations. I've been talking to intellectual property litigator Terrence Fross, a
partner at Caton Mutchen Rosenman Terry. What arguments did the computer scientist make to try to get the court to find that there should be a copyright issued for a wholly AI generated work?
So Peller makes a couple arguments. The only one that they gave much credence to was dictionary definition. There are dictionary definitions where you look up creator and the definition suggests it could be a machine. But as VC Circuit pointed out, we don't go to a dictionary definition unless there's ambiguity in the statute. And here they said, you know,
we're doing a textual analysis. Here, we're looking strictly the text, and the text is clear as can be that there is a distinction drawn between authors who have get copyrights and machines who are merely tools used by authors, and therefore we don't need to look at any dictionary definition. Now, the rest of the arguments made by Polar and the DC CERCUM was clear on this and correct. I think they described as public policy arguments. And again this is telling.
They said on all these other public policy are hums. You have you take those to the Congress. And there's a great quote in here they say, our duty as a court is to apply the statute as written. That's a quote, apply the statute is written. I mean, this would make Justice Scalia so happy that this has become
the norm now. And you know what, if that's the standard you're going to use for analysis, then there's no question how this case should come out, because in fact, most of the argument made by doctor Tholer, aren't simply public policy arguments as to why Congress should rewrite the Copyright Act.
So this work was created wholly by AI. What about works that are created with a mixture of human and AI input? Are they copyrightable?
So this is the issue that is really getting all the discussion in the academic circles that I run in. And Poller made argument like that, which the DC Circuit again lumped into the public policy type arguments, and what they said is that we only decide cases that are presented to us. These what they described as line drawing arguments. You know, where do you draw the line between a human author and a machine author? These line drawing arguments aren't presented to us here, and so we're not going
to decide those. And they recognize that there and there were in the Amikus briefs disagreements over how much of a contribution by AI makes it a machine generated work as opposed to human generated work, and the DC Certus said, that's not this case. Doctor Toller has never made that argument. He's been crystal clear that the machine, the robot, did all the drawing here, and that's all we have to decide again. This is the sort of decision that would
make Justice Skilly a proud. It looks at the text and it does not come to render it opinions or tell Congress how to do its job. It simply plays referee and makes a decision on what is actually presented to it.
So I read that the Copyright Office how's allowed the registration of works made by humans who use AI.
That is correct. There have been several of those because those were allowed. I'm not sure how we ever get a review in a court of law of that. At some point we will have a case where the Copyright Office is not enough human involvement, too much machine involvement, and then that will get us a review and we might understand this better. But think about it in these terms. Humans use machines all the time to create works. As a newsperson, you're doing that with your typewriter. Authors are
doing that with their typewriters laptops. Journalists on the nationwide news networks are doing it with cameras. Radio newscasters are sticking them microphone in front of the sports hero and recording his thoughts. Humans use machines all the time, and there should be no difference with respect to using AI to help. Indeed, a son, Teddy, who is a computer coder, and there are so many different artificial intelligence programs out there right now that help coders source coders to write
programs and makes their job more efficient, more effective. Does that mean the human's not involved? I don't think so. So I think that's the answer to that question. It's simply the machine being used by human. It's not the machine getting a copyright registration.
Maybe I'll have AI assistance in writing the lead into this segment.
Oh god, I'm sure you could.
It seems like AI is everywhere and there are so many lawsuits over AI. What are the stakes here?
So, Jude, this is a surprisingly important issue. If you remember, almost two years ago, the Screenwriters Guild the Writer Skilled of America went on strike and stopped all production of film and television shows. Even reality shows got stopped because they have writers. And one of the core issues that was presented was the use by the studios of artificial
intelligence to write scripts. The writers viewed this as an existential threat to their business, to their work, that it would put writers out on the street because artificial intelligence would simply take over and do all the script writing, and that was one of the concessions that they obtained
when that striker was settled. But the point here is that if artificial intelligence scripts cannot be copyrighted, then that shifts the bargaining power to the writers, because a studio that's producing spending two hundred and fifty million dollars on a big hit score generally a billion dollars in revenues cannot afford to go without a copy. And so this is actually very important in the computer context. And we just talked about how artificial intelligence is being used to
help coders write new applications, new software. If again those companies, the Microsofts of the world, can't get copyrights on their new computer programs because of the use of artificial intelligence, that will limit their willingness to employ artificial intelligence in that way, and so again the computer scientists, the coders will keep their jobs. So this is really important. And the problem is people don't understand the extent of which
copyright impacts the economy. It is really critical, and the founders saw it this way. The Founders viewed copyright it's one of the most important drivers of the US economy, and that came to fruition, and by stopping robots from getting copyrights, we preserve enormous amounts of cre native positions
in the economy across multiple businesses. And that's why this decision is so important, not just in an abstract sense, but as a very real consequence for the United States economy in multiple industries.
Teller's lawyer says that they're going to appeal to the full DC Circuit and if that doesn't work, they're going to appeal to the Supreme Court. Do you think the DC Circuit would take this case on bank?
Now? And I understand how the DC Circuit works on these It's what's known as a petition for rehearing on bank, so that all the active judges would sit on it. In this case, there were two active judges and one senior judge, so sometimes they use it. Well, look, there was a scene, but it was only one senior judge
and the panel was unanimous. But setting that aside, the internal rules used by the DC Circuit to grant a petition for rehearing on bank aren't satisfied by this decision, And if he then takes it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will deny the petition for CERTSCRI because there is no split amongst the circuit courts that needs to be resolved, and this issue is not such a unique issue of law that's liable to come up on
a repeated basis. So both those types of heal and appeal to the en bancd DC circuit or a petition for ressearchs ther Supreme Court are going to get denied. Are simply a waste of his time. But apparently that's part of what's going on here, is to generate some sort of publicity surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in the creative process.
It seemed like he was trying to make this a test case, no question about it.
This was the pest case and it served that purpose, and that respected actually was pretty useful. As I said, copyright impacts a lot of segments of the economy, and it's really really important that we got this resolution on
separate track. The Patent Office has also internally ruled that only humans get patents, because you'd take the same logic that doctor Toller uses respect to copyright registration and apply to patent registration against Patents are a critical component of the US economy, a real driver of the economy, and we don't yet have the same clarity, but I'm pretty confident that the Patent Office rules on requiring human to
be the applicants for patents will be upheld again. That would be a very important we'd like to see a test case on that.
With all the cases percolating over these issues, I'm sure we will. It's been great to have you on again, Terry. Thanks so much. That's Terrence Ross, a partner at Katon Muchen Rosenmann. The latest effort to get the Supreme Court to restrain government regulation has an unlikely opponent, President Donald Trump. In a case that offers a chance to impose new limits on regulatory agencies, the Justice Department defended the FCC's
Universal Service Fund. It's an eight billion dollar telecom subsidy program which you use. This is a charge on monthly telephone bills to subsidize phone and broadband service for poor people, rural residents, schools, and libraries. Taking this position even as Trump works to decimate federal agencies with a barrage of
job and funding cuts. Some conservative justices voiced concern during the oral arguments on Wednesday that Congress had unconstitutionally handed off its taxing power to the FCC without sufficient limits. Here's Justice Neil Gorstch, who described the program's funding mechanism as unprecedented.
We've got a feebody of law, We've got a rate setting body of law. This isn't either one of those. This is this is just a straight up tax without any any numerical limit, any cap, any rate. And we've never approved something like that before.
But Justice Elena Kagan pointed to other constraints in the law, including its instruction to the end CC that rural areas should get services that are reasonably comparable to urban areas.
I mean, this is all basic stuff. These are not exorbitant things, These are not gratuitous things. This is just like the way the FCC has operated that program is consistent with the standards that have been set in this program, which is, these are providing basic services for people who live in North Dakota and for people who live below the poverty line. And by the way, as mister Clement said, those basic services benefit all of us because we should all be able to talk to people in North Dakota.
Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold krant A professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, Hew tell Us about this FCC program and the issue here.
In the nineteen ninety six Congress passed the Toll Communications Act and said is a major part of that act to subsidize service to rural and low income areas. And so they thought was to get into the wired technology world, we have to bring all of the country together. And to do that, there are certain criteria that are set about how the FCC is supposed to determine how much sort of subsidy it gives to rural and low income areas, schools, libraries,
and the like the following year. And there's certain kinds of intelligible principles or principles set into the statutes, such as, quote the quality service ship to be available at rates and that access to advanced technology quote should be available in all regions of the country. So that's the basic construct and the first argument in the cases whether that suffers under the non delegation doctrine because it's too open ended, it's too vague, and it gives a lot of discretion to the FCC.
Explain the non delegation doctrine.
So under the non delegation doctrine the Court in the nineteen thirties and has given lip service since. Has held that if Congress doesn't specify the standards under which executive agencies should act, that they may have given away their own legislative authority and therefore violated Article one of the Constitution. And there are a number of cases in which statutes were struck down in the nineteen thirties and since then
the Court has cited to the non delegation doctrine. About five justices argued that it should be come back and be more actively enforced in some way, and they've used it mainly as a way to limit delegations by reading delegations more narrowly to what what they say would otherwise
be an excessive delegation issue. So this has been part of the war on administrative agencies, is to suggest that Congress can't give open ended delegations to them, even though there are many open ended delegations in the statute books. So on this first point, there was an argument about
how Congress simply hadn't done this job. It gave too much discretion, in other words, to the agency to determine how much to subsidize to rural areas and to lowing preme areas, and how much then for fees to impose upon the national telecoms. A good example of this is a question that was raised by Justice Gorsuch. He said, what about forcing everybody to have some kind of access
to stylink elon Musk's sail life service. And his point was just to show that, you know, maybe that's within the literal terms of the statute, and therefore it's very problematic. And he also said the fact that this is a tax also suggests that the delegation should be more narrowly construed. Justice Kavanaugh asked an interesting question about whether delegations to independent agencies, which we think the FCC is, whether that should be construed more narrowly because of the lack of
presidential control. So usually the some of the more interesting questions on the excessive delegation question that was raised. At the end of the day, it seems as if the Supreme Court will reject the excessive delegation argument. And indeed, what's probably interesting that bear's stress here is that President Trump has defended the delegation right, even though he was
on a crusade against administrative agencies. Now that he's in a White House, he may be singing a different tune in his administration than defend this under the traditional intelligible principle task, which asked whether Congress has articulated sufficient guidance to restrain the conduct of the administrative agencies, and the principles we discussed earlier in the statute apparently satisfy that in terms of the Trump administration, and many the justices
seem to be satisfied with that as well.
So does it seem as if there might be three votes Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas against this program, and that the liberals and the conservatives that are more in the middle of the court would vote to uphold it.
That's my best guess. I mean Justice kevinaugh might be on the dissenting side as well. Justice Barrett had some concerns, but I think at the end of the day, the Chief Justice and Justice Barreit will vote to uphold the program.
So that's just the first challenge in the case. Then, one year after the statute was passed, the FCC decided to shift responsibility to a private group called the Universal Services Administrative Company to make the calculations about how much subsidy should be given to these low income communities, and accordingly, after getting that number, how much fees had to be
assessed on the telecoms. So they have a very important role under the statute because they actually do the numbers crunching and the forecasting to determine how big the substitt should be, and again what kind of fees then to
assess the telecoms. And on this part of the statutory scheme or really the ad ministry of scheme, the challenger said that this is an excessive amount of authority to private individuals, that private individuals cannot have this much authority under the terms of the United States because they're not subject to the appointment of authority of the president or to the president's removal powers. And so that was part of the reason this statue was held on constitutional by
the Fifth Circuit. And the court then debated this private delegation aspect of the statutory scheme as well. And again what's interesting is that the up administration defended, it defended the role for private parties, and their argument was that the private parties do make the calculations, they are important, but they're subject to FCC oversight and that oversight is sufficient. And one can wonder if the administration is sensitive to the role of private parties these days because of Doge
and Elon Musk. I don't know, but that's certainly one way to read this. But they certainly have had a different tune about the role of private parties once they assume power.
So this is another chance for the Court to impose new limits on regulatory agencies, which the Court has already taken a sledgehammer to. Do you think they'll pass up this chance.
Yeah, There's another case that'spending in the Supreme Court which poses somewhat of analogous question about non delegation and the role of private parties. Neither case is the role of the private party's egregious, though I will say in this case the subjects come to many billions of dollars, so we're not talking about a minor sort of program at all. And obviously to the telecoms just makes a huge difference.
But in both cases it seems that the delegation was more circumscribed by Congress than in other cases that we've seen in the last fifty years. I mean, you know, the original delegation to the Federal Communications Commission was to regulate the airwaves in the public interest according to the public interest and necessity. That's about as broad of a delegation as one could imagine, and yet that has been upheld. So in comparison the seeing these two cases, they seem
to be more cabinet delegations. Obviously, lower courts have taken the bit and held some of these statutory schemes to be unconstitutional, which is why they're percolating up to the Supreme Court. So it will be interesting to see what
the Court does with it. But again, I think one of the first interesting notes is that President's Trump administration has basically used the same argumentation as President Bind's administration in finding the intelligible principle and suggesting that that's all that's needed to uphold a delegation.
So in Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asked that question about the implications of striking down the program. She got a big yes from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
There are a number of different agencies that have similar kinds of revenue generating. I know some people call them fees and not taxes. I've already established that in my view that doesn't make a difference a number of agencies that have these kinds of general statements about raising revenue that they determine as necessary or appropriate to carry out responsibilities. So let me just say that if we find that this one is unconstitutional, are all of these programs in jeopardy in your view?
Yes? Thank you, hell I'll ask you the question that Justice Jackson asked, if the justices did strike down the part of the law that authorizes the program's funding mechanism, would that endanger similar funding setups at the FED and the FDIC, for example.
And indeed it would, and that was part of the concern that was expressed during the oral argument, is what would be the ripple effect of finding this kind of CE assessment scheme to be unconstitutional? Because this is somewhat of an unusual scheme, but it does have echoes, as you point out, with the FED and in some other agencies as well. And so to the extent that there is discretion that Congress has vested in these agencies to determine assessments and fees, then that would pose a huge
target for litigation. If the Supreme Court Knoxis went down on under delegation grounds, And I want.
To ask you a question that I've been asking a lot of people lately. The Trump administration has taken five emergency appeals to the Supreme Court. I mean, the ones before the court right now involve birthright citizenship, teacher training grants, mass firings of probationary employees, and there are more cases in the pipeline that the administration is expected to take
to the Supreme Court. Do you think the justices are going to be receptive to this onslaught of emergency appeals or start to get perhaps a little annoyed.
I think the Court will get I mean, I think it's understandable that there's more claims at the beginning of the administration, given the whole series of executive orders that were administered and articulated. But if that pace continues, I think the Court will get annoordered. I think the Court will give a second look to the question of nationwide injunctions.
It hasn't really weighed in on the issue that it was so contentious during the Biden administration, and now that the shoes on the other foot, maybe they'll say, you know, we probably should have stepped in earlier and clarified when there can be a nationwide injunction because we're just being forced into this position of having to react all the time because of the imposition of these nationwide injunctions.
Well, we'll see whether they decide to take that case or not. Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krant other Chicago cant College of Law. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg