When the Machine Becomes the Creator: Artificial Intelligence v. the Human Creator Requirements of U.S. Copyright Law

A recent Entrance to Paradise

An alternative vision generated by DALL-E

U.S. Court Rules AI Cannot Be Copyright Author, Affirming Human Authorship Requirement

In a landmark ruling issued on March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has affirmed that artificial intelligence systems cannot be recognized as authors under U.S. copyright law. The court's decision in Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter et al. upholds the Copyright Office's denial of registration for artwork allegedly created autonomously by an AI system.

The case centered on Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who attempted to register a copyright for an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which he claimed was created autonomously by his AI system called the "Creativity Machine." In his application, Thaler listed the AI as the author and himself as the copyright claimant.

The three-judge panel, led by Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, ruled that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all copyrightable works to be authored in the first instance by a human being. The court noted that numerous provisions in the Copyright Act only make sense if the author is human, including those regarding an author's lifespan, heirs, domicile, and legal capacity to hold property.

"The Copyright Act makes no sense if an 'author' is not a human being," the court stated in its opinion. "If 'machine' is substituted for 'author,' the Copyright Act would refer to a machine's 'children,' a machine's 'widow,' a machine's 'domicile,' a machine's mens rea, and a machine's 'nationality.'"

The ruling emphasized that machines are consistently defined in the Copyright Act as tools used by human authors, not as creators themselves. The court also pointed to the Copyright Office's longstanding interpretation requiring human authorship, dating back to at least 1973.

While the decision prevents AI systems from being recognized as authors, it does not prohibit copyright protection for works created by humans with AI assistance. The Copyright Office has previously registered works where AI was used as a tool under human direction and control.

This ruling could have significant economic implications as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent across industries. Legal experts note that without copyright protection for works created solely by AI, such content would effectively remain in the public domain.

The court concluded that any changes to copyright law to accommodate AI authorship would need to come from Congress, not the judiciary. "Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology," the opinion stated, quoting a 1984 Supreme Court decision.

The ruling aligns with similar decisions in other circuits that have required human authorship for copyright protection, including the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Kelley v. Chicago Park District (2011) and implied rulings from the Ninth Circuit.

Case Summary

In the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed whether a work created autonomously by an artificial intelligence (AI) system qualifies for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Background

Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist, developed an AI system known as the "Creativity Machine." This system independently generated an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." Dr. Thaler sought to register the copyright for this artwork with the United States Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author and himself as the owner. The Copyright Office denied the application, citing its policy that only works authored by humans are eligible for copyright protection. Dr. Thaler challenged this decision in federal district court, which upheld the Copyright Office's denial. He then appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

Court's Decision

On March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship for a work to be eligible for copyright protection. The court stated that "the Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being." This decision aligns with the Copyright Office's longstanding position that human creativity is a prerequisite for copyrightability. citeturn0search0

Implications

This ruling reinforces the principle that, under current U.S. law, copyright protection is limited to works created by humans. As AI technologies continue to evolve and play a more significant role in content creation, this decision may prompt further discussions and potential legislative action regarding the scope of copyright law in relation to AI-generated works.

The case highlights the ongoing debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines as AI becomes increasingly integrated into creative processes.

 Some thoughts on Copyright and Originality

LLMs are trained on vast datasets that include copyrighted materials, often without explicit permission from every rights holder. This practice has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing legal challenges in cases like those brought against OpenAI and other AI companies by authors and publishers.

The Thaler ruling focuses specifically on the output side—who can claim authorship of created works—rather than the input side related to training data. But there's certainly a connection between these issues in the broader legal landscape of AI and copyright.

The court's reasoning that machines are "tools" used by humans rather than independent creators could potentially influence how courts view AI training as well. If AI systems are legally considered tools rather than autonomous creators, it might affect how the law views the transformation of copyrighted works during training.

What's particularly interesting is that this ruling reinforces that truly AI-generated content (with no human creative input) would effectively belong to the public domain since no copyright could attach to it. This creates a situation where the inputs to AI systems might be copyrighted, but completely autonomous outputs would not be—highlighting the legal tension in this rapidly evolving field.

If a human agent created a book or artwork by directly copying and pasting elements from copyrighted works and then attempted to copyright it as their own, they would face several legal problems:

1. Lack of originality: To qualify for copyright protection, a work must possess a minimal degree of originality that represents the author's own intellectual creation. Direct copying and pasting without significant transformation fails this threshold requirement.

2. Copyright infringement: The person would likely be infringing on the original copyright holders' exclusive rights to reproduce and create derivative works from their material. They could face legal action from the rights holders.

3. Invalid copyright claim: The Copyright Office would likely reject the application if they recognized the work as substantially copied from existing works. If the copyright was initially granted because the copying wasn't detected, it could later be invalidated if challenged.

4. Fair use limitations: Even if the person tried to claim fair use, which permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission, wholesale copying and pasting typically falls outside fair use protections, especially if it's for commercial purposes or uses substantial portions of the original works.

There are narrow exceptions where appropriation art or certain forms of collage might receive some protection for the creative arrangement or selection of materials, but these are limited and still require substantial original contribution or transformation of the source materials.

The Thaler case relates to this issue in an interesting way - it reinforces that copyright requires human creativity and originality, which is absent in both direct copying and in purely machine-generated content.

When the Machine Becomes the Creator: Artificial Intelligence v. the Human Creator Requirements of U.S. Copyright Law

Here are some sources related to the Thaler v. Perlmutter case:

1. Official Court Opinion: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-5233/23-5233-2025-03-18.html

2. Court Listener Docket: The docket information for Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, Case No. 23-5233, is available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67892225/stephen-thaler-v-shira-perlmutter/
   

3. Bloomberg Law Article: An article discussing the court's ruling that human authorship is required for copyright registration: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/artificial-intelligence/human-authorship-required-to-register-copyright-d-c-cir-rules

4. Mayer Brown Analysis: An analysis on the necessity of human input for the copyrightability of works created with artificial intelligence: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/02/human-input-necessary-for-copyrightability-of-works-created-with-artificial-intelligence

These sources provide comprehensive information on the case and its implications for copyright law concerning AI-generated works.