Introduction
On March 18, 2025 [2] [3] [5] [7] [9], the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit delivered a significant ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter [3], affirming that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection [1]. This decision underscores the requirement for human authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976 and aligns with the US Copyright Office’s long-standing position on the matter.
Description
On March 18, 2025 [2] [3] [5] [7] [9], the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in Thaler v [11]. Perlmutter that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection [1], reaffirming the requirement for human authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976 [2]. This decision denied copyright registration for original artwork generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence (AI) system, aligning with the US Copyright Office’s long-standing position that only human creators can hold copyright protections [2] [9]. The court emphasized that the language of the Copyright Act presumes a human author, highlighting that machines lack essential attributes such as the ability to sign documents [9], possess a domicile [4], or hold property rights [3] [4] [8] [10]. Furthermore, since AI cannot own property and does not have a lifespan, it cannot hold copyright [2] [9] [10], which is a property right that vests immediately in the author upon creation [3] [10].
This ruling affirmed a previous decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [2] [9], which upheld the Copyright Office’s rejection of Dr [2] [9]. Stephen Thaler’s application for copyright for a piece titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” generated by his generative AI system, DABUS [5] [7] [11], also known as the Creativity Machine. The court noted that human authorship is crucial for copyright eligibility, reinforcing the notion that the term “author” in the Copyright Act refers exclusively to human beings [3]. The court referenced historical interpretations of the term [6], pointing out that prior to the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act, it was consistently understood to refer to human beings [6]. A congressional commission in 1974 had already established that machines cannot be authors [6], further solidifying the requirement for human authorship at the time the Copyright Act was enacted [6].
Dr. Thaler [3] [4] [5] [7] [8] [11], a prominent figure in the legal discourse surrounding AI and intellectual property [11], has faced multiple legal challenges in his attempts to secure rights for creations generated by his AI systems [11]. His previous case [11], Thaler v [3] [4] [5] [7] [11]. Vidal [11], sought to have DABUS recognized as an inventor in patent applications [11], but the US Federal Circuit ruled that only natural persons can hold inventorship under patent law [11]. The US Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s application based on a precedent set by the 1884 Supreme Court case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co [11]. v. Sarony [11], which established that copyright protection requires human authorship [6] [11]. Subsequent appeals to the US District Court and the DC Circuit Court upheld this rejection [11], reinforcing the notion that the Copyright Act only protects works created by humans [11]. The court did not address whether Thaler could claim authorship based on his role in creating and using DABUS [5] [7], as he had waived that argument [5] [7].
The appellate court’s unanimous decision [11], articulated by Judge Patricia Millett [11], clarified that copyright is a property right that vests in the author upon creation [3] [8], and since machines cannot own property [3] [10], they cannot be considered authors [2] [3] [4] [6] [9]. The court dismissed the argument that the applicant could be deemed the author under the work-made-for-hire doctrine [6], concluding that all copyrightable works must originate from a human creator [6]. Since the image in question was not created by a human [6], the applicant was found to have no copyright interest under this doctrine [6]. The court noted that various provisions of the Copyright Act [2], such as the need for signatures and the inheritable nature of copyright [2], further reinforce that authors must be human [2]. Thaler’s argument for updating the law to recognize AI-generated works was dismissed [11], as the court focused on the explicit listing of the AI as the author without any human input [11].
This ruling underscores the limitations of current copyright law regarding AI-generated works [11], indicating that while works involving AI could potentially be copyrightable [11], they must demonstrate significant human involvement [11]. The decision aligns with existing US patent doctrine [5] [7], which similarly requires human inventorship for patent protection [5] [7]. The rationale for these requirements is the belief that only humans can truly create art or conceive inventions [5] [7], a notion supported by a White Paper from the University of Oxford [5] [7]. This paper outlines that human creativity encompasses external [5] [7], mental [1] [5] [7], and social components [5] [7], which generative AI currently does not replicate [5].
Moreover, the White Paper suggests that reliance on AI may hinder human creativity by promoting a focus on speed and passive consumption of AI outputs [5], potentially leading individuals to lose confidence in their creative abilities [5]. The ongoing debate surrounding AI-generated works challenges traditional intellectual property doctrines [5] [7], as the distinction between human creativity and AI capabilities continues to evolve [5], raising complex legal questions in the realm of copyright and patent law [5]. Additionally, ongoing litigation may address the legality of using copyrighted materials to train AI models [2] [9], as lawsuits from the creative industry challenge AI companies on this issue [2] [9]. The US Copyright Office is preparing a report to further explore this matter [2] [9], indicating that the registrability of AI-generated works depends on the specific circumstances of how the AI was utilized in the creative process [7]. Recent rulings have allowed copyright registration for hybrid works that involve both human and AI contributions [5] [7], complicating the landscape of copyright and patent law [7]. Authors using AI should consult legal counsel to assess the copyrightability of their works [10], as the extent of AI’s role in the creation process can significantly impact eligibility for copyright protection.
Conclusion
The ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter highlights the current limitations of copyright law in addressing AI-generated works, emphasizing the necessity of human involvement for copyright eligibility. This decision aligns with existing patent law and reflects broader concerns about the role of AI in creative processes. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, authors and creators must navigate these complexities, particularly regarding the extent of AI’s contribution to their works. The ongoing debate and potential legal challenges may shape future interpretations and adaptations of intellectual property law in the context of AI advancements.
References
[1] https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/521099/the-patent-baron-pllc-highlights-dc-circuit-ruling-affirming-human-authorship-requirement-for-copyright
[2] https://www.mlstrategies.com/insights-center/viewpoints/54031/2025-03-28-dc-circuit-court-rules-ai-cannot-be-author-copyrighted
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/d-c-circuit-affirms-denial-of-copyright-9312014/
[4] https://ktslaw.com/en/insights/alert/2025/3/dc%20circuit%20holds%20the%20line%20on%20denying%20copyright%20protection%20to%20ai%20generated%20works
[5] https://natlawreview.com/article/dc-circuit-denies-copyright-ai-artwork-what-humans-have-and-artificial-intelligence
[6] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dc-circuit-holds-that-ai-cannot-be-an-8653918/
[7] https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/alerts/dc-circuit-denies-copyright-ai-artwork-what-humans-have-and-artificial-intelligence
[8] https://www.ipupdate.com/2025/03/human-authorship-required-ai-isnt-an-author-under-copyright-act/
[9] https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/54731/2025-03-28-dc-circuit-court-rules-ai-cannot-be-author-copyrighted
[10] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/human-authorship-required-ai-isn-t-an-7738406/
[11] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-and-copyright-what-a-recent-court-7442764/
