In a significant decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires human authorship to register a work, affirming the district court’s denial of a copyright application for a AI generated picture.

This ruling has profound implications for anyone working with AI in creative industries, from digital artists to software developers and beyond. As AI technology continues to evolve, the question of who holds the rights to works produced by machines has become a pressing issue. This case serves as a key marker in the ongoing debate about the future of AI-generated content and intellectual property protection.

Dr. Thaler and His Quest for AI Intellectual Property Rights

Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist and entrepreneur, has been at the forefront of the legal battles surrounding intellectual property rights for artificial intelligence (AI) creations. Over the years, Thaler has developed several AI systems designed to autonomously generate creative works, sparking ongoing debates about whether AI, as a non-human entity, can be granted intellectual property protection. His efforts have consistently faced legal challenges, particularly when he sought to have AI systems recognized as authors or inventors under current intellectual property laws.

In a notable earlier case, Thaler v. Vidal, Thaler attempted to have his AI system, DABUS, named as the sole inventor in patent applications. However, the U.S. Federal Circuit ruled against him, reaffirming that inventorship under U.S. patent law is limited to natural persons. This decision marked a significant setback in Thaler’s quest to secure intellectual property rights for AI-generated inventions.

Undeterred, Thaler continued his pursuit in the realm of copyright law, this time with a new AI system he created, called the “Creativity Machine.” In May 2019, Thaler submitted an application to the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright protection for a two-dimensional artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which had been entirely generated by the Creativity Machine. In this case, Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the sole “author” of the artwork, with himself as the “Copyright Claimant.” In the application, Thaler clearly indicated that the artwork was “created autonomously by machine.”

However, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s application, referencing the 1884 Supreme Court case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, which held that copyright protection requires human authorship. Since no human was involved in the creation of the artwork, the Copyright Office argued that it did not meet the legal criteria for copyright eligibility. Thaler appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the rejection, citing similar grounds. Undeterred, Thaler further appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

However, the Appellate Court delivered another set back for Thaler, affirming the district court’s decision, reinforcing the position that the Copyright Act of 1976 only protects works created by humans. This ruling echoed Thaler’s earlier patent case, Thaler v. Vidal, where the Federal Circuit similarly denied patent rights for inventions generated by an AI system, again emphasizing that intellectual property laws are designed to protect human creators, not machines.

The Court’s Rationale in Thaler v. Perlmutter

The unanimous decision, written by Judge Patricia Millett, centered around the definition of “author” under the Copyright Act. While the Act does not explicitly define “author,” the court pointed out that multiple provisions within the law suggest that authors must be human. One key factor was the ability of an author to own property—a concept that is inherently tied to human capacity and is not applicable to machines. Additionally, the court emphasized that the duration of copyright protection is linked to the author’s lifespan, an issue that doesn’t apply to AI.

The court also rejected Thaler’s argument that the law should be updated to allow AI-generated works to be copyrightable, noting that the central issue in this case was the AI system’s role as the listed author. Since Thaler had explicitly listed the machine as the author and not himself, the court declined to consider whether Thaler could be considered the author due to his creation of the AI system.

A link to the full decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 23-5233, 2025 WL 839178 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) on Westlaw can be found here.

What Does This Mean for AI and Copyright?

The decision highlights the current limits of copyright law when it comes to AI-generated works. The court did not rule out the possibility that works involving AI could be copyrightable, but emphasized that such works would need to show significant human involvement. In the case at hand, where Thaler listed only the AI as the author, there was no room for human input to be recognized.

This ruling adds to a growing body of cases surrounding AI-generated content and raises important questions about the future of intellectual property in a world where AI is increasingly involved in creative processes.

Key Takeaways for the Creative Industry

As AI continues to play a larger role in the creative industries, this case offers several important lessons for businesses and individuals working with AI:

1. Monitor AI Usage: Clients in the creative industries should closely monitor how AI is being used in the creation of work products. Given the emphasis on human involvement for copyright eligibility, maintaining a clear record of how AI is integrated into the creative process could be critical for securing copyright protection.
2. Human Input is Key: The case highlights that simply using AI to generate creative works may not be enough to secure copyright. For example, in Allen v. Perlmutter, the artist provided specific prompts to guide the AI, but the Copyright Office still denied registration, arguing that Allen lacked control over the AI’s final output. This suggests that merely issuing prompts may not qualify as sufficient human input for copyright protection.
3. Work for Hire Limitations: In Thaler v. Perlmutter the court also disallowed the argument that the “work for hire” doctrine could be applied to AI-generated content, which would allow non-human entities or companies to own the copyright. The court emphasized that this doctrine cannot bypass the requirement that a work must be created by a human to be eligible for copyright.

The Future of AI and Copyright

The ongoing evolution of AI technology and its role in the creative industries presents a challenge for lawmakers, courts, and businesses alike. While the D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling reinforces the traditional view that copyright law requires human authorship, it also opens the door for future debates about the degree of human involvement necessary for AI-assisted works to be considered copyrightable.

As AI technology continues to advance, it’s likely that we will see more legal cases challenging the boundaries of copyright law. For now, it’s clear that for a work to qualify for copyright protection, there must be a human creator at the helm—something that will likely continue to shape the way AI is used in creative fields going forward.