On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the D.C. District Court's and U.S. Copyright Office's decisions, holding that a copyrighted work cannot be authored exclusively by an AI system. This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection in the United States.
Case Background
Computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler claims to have created a generative-AI system dubbed "Creativity Machine," which Dr. Thaler says created a picture that he titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" (the "Artwork"). Dr. Thaler submitted the Artwork to the Copyright Office for registration, listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author of the work and himself as the work's owner, stating that the Artwork was "autonomously created by artificial intelligence." The Copyright Office denied registration because "a human being did not create the work."
The Litigation
Dr. Thaler sought judicial review of the Office's decision. The D.C. District Court agreed with the Copyright Office and declined to recognize copyright protection in works created solely by AI systems, holding that "[h]uman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023). The district court also found that Dr. Thaler waived his argument that he should be regarded as the author (because he created and used the Creativity Machine), as his case presented "only the question of whether a work generated autonomously by a computer system is eligible for copyright."
Affirming the district court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Dr. Thaler's reading of the Act and held that "the current Copyright Act's text, taken as a whole, is best read as making humanity a necessary condition for authorship under the Copyright Act." Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). It also rejected Dr. Thaler's work‑made-for-hire argument, because, the court explained, the Creativity Machine did not have authorship that could be imputed to him.
The Court then made a crucial clarification that, contrary to Dr. Thaler's position, "the human authorship requirement does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence," it merely requires that the "author" of the work be a human being—not the AI system itself.
Implications for AI-Human Collaboration
This ruling clarifies that works created with AI assistance can still receive copyright protection when human authors exercise sufficient creative control and input. The decision leaves open the possibility that a human who uses AI as a tool—similar to using a camera, word processor, or other technology—may claim authorship of the resulting work if they contribute sufficient creative elements.
While this case addressed an extreme scenario where no human authorship was claimed, it sets the stage for more questions about the degree of human involvement required for copyright protection.
Conclusion
The Thaler case touches on the very essence of U.S. copyright law, which historically has protected the fruits of human intellectual labor for the public benefit. The law rewards the judgment, skill, and creative choices that humans exercise when creating works, recognizing the uniquely human aspects of the creative process.
Thaler confirms that an AI system—by itself—cannot be the sole author of a copyrightable work because it does not satisfy the human authorship requirement. However, the ruling also acknowledges the reality of AI as a creative tool and preserves the copyright system's fundamental purpose of promoting human creativity while adapting to technological evolution.
For more information regarding Alto Litigation’s litigation practice, please contact one of Alto Litigation’s partners: Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Bryan Ketroser, or Joshua Korr.
****
Disclaimer: Materials on this website are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Transmission of materials and information on this website is not intended to create, and their receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Although you may send us email or call us, we cannot represent you until we have determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interests. Accordingly, if you choose to communicate with us in connection with a matter in which we do not already represent you, you should not send us confidential or sensitive information, because such communication will not be treated as privileged or confidential. We can only serve as your attorney if both you and we agree, in writing, that we will do so.
The materials on this website are not intended to constitute advertising or solicitation. However, portions of this website may be considered attorney advertising in some states.
Unless otherwise specified, the attorneys listed on this website are admitted to practice in the State of California.