In an important decision on the copyrightability of AI authored works issued on March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit upheld a 2023 district court ruling denying an appeal to secure copyright protection for artwork created by an artificial intelligence system. The case is Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025), and the decision is consistent with the U.S. Copyright Office's position that copyright law only protects works created by human beings. Petitioner Stephen Thaler's appeal stemmed from a 2023 lower court decision that upheld the Copyright Office’s rejection of the two-dimensional artwork, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," created by Thaler’s AI system, the Creativity Machine.
A panel of appellate judges unanimously ruled that human authorship is required for copyright registration under the Copyright Act of 1976, rejecting Thaler’s arguments that “outdated” judicial opinions should not preclude copyright protection for AI generated works. In its ruling, the appeals panel noted that the Copyright Act does not explicitly define "author," but several provisions suggest that the term implies human authorship, including the ability to own property and transfer ownership interests, as well as copyright duration being tied to the life of the author. While these provisions don't state a strict requirement, the court found they support the idea that authors must be human – specifically pointing out that “author” was consistently interpreted as referring to humans prior to the 1976 Act and Congress likely maintained that interpretation when revising the law. Thaler’s arguments that he should be considered the author of the work as a “work-made-for-hire” since the Creativity Machine was his employee also failed. The court found that the argument “misunderstands the human authorship requirement” which “necessitates that all original works of authorship be created in the first instance by a human being, including those who make work for hire” (internal quotations removed).
The Copyright Office has been steadfast in denying registration for AI-generated works. Since Thaler designated the Creativity Machine as the sole author in his copyright application, Judge Millett emphasized the point that the law is clear that a machine cannot be the author of a work.
Thaler’s case is part of a broader debate over the critical issue of whether works created by AI should be eligible for copyright. In the foreseeable future, the debate will turn to whether human beings can be properly designated as “authors” of any works generated through AI systems. If so, the critical determination seems to be what level of human involvement or contribution will be necessary to establish human authorship and eligibility for copyright protection.