The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be recognized as authors under the Copyright Act of 1976, affirming a lower court’s decision to reject a copyright registration for an artwork created solely by AI.
The case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, was brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to register a copyright for an image generated by his AI system, the “Creativity Machine.” In his application, Thaler listed the AI as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner. The U.S. Copyright Office denied the application, citing its longstanding policy that copyright protection is limited to works created by humans.
In its decision, the court upheld this policy, ruling that the Copyright Act explicitly requires human authorship. “The Copyright Act’s text, taken as a whole, is best read as making humanity a necessary condition for authorship,” wrote Circuit Judge Patricia Millett in the court’s opinion. The court reasoned that various provisions of the law, including those relating to copyright duration and inheritance, assume that an author is a human being.
The ruling aligns with previous legal precedents, including a 2018 Ninth Circuit decision that denied copyright protection for a photograph taken by a monkey. Courts have consistently held that non-human entities cannot be considered authors, though works created with significant human input using AI tools may still be eligible for copyright protection.
Thaler had also argued that he should be recognized as the author of the AI-generated image under the “work-for-hire” doctrine, which allows employers or commissioning parties to own copyrights for works created by others. The court rejected this claim, noting that a machine is not an employee in the legal sense and that a copyrightable work must originate from a human creator.
The decision has significant implications for AI-generated content as industries increasingly rely on AI tools for creative production. While the ruling does not preclude copyright protection for works made with AI assistance, it reinforces that a human must play a meaningful role in the creative process.
Legal experts suggest that Congress may eventually need to address AI authorship explicitly. The U.S. Copyright Office has been studying the issue and recently issued guidance stating that AI-assisted works can qualify for copyright if a human makes creative contributions.
For now, the court’s decision sets a clear standard: under current U.S. law, AI cannot hold copyrights. Thaler has not indicated whether he will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Need Help?
If you’re wondering how Australia’s AI policy, or any other government’s bill or regulations could impact you, don’t hesitate to reach out to BABL AI. Their Audit Experts are ready to provide valuable assistance while answering your questions and concerns.
