Thaler V. Perlmutter: D.C. Circuit Confirms Only Human Works Can Be Copyrighted

April 2, 2025

For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Maria Therese Syriac, a student at NUALS Kochi

“Dear diary, today I created a masterpiece that no one will ever legally recognize as mine.”

– Every AI system after March 18, 2025

In a ruling that draws a line between human and machine creativity, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has delivered what might be considered the first legal existential crisis for Artificial Intelligence. The court’s decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter effectively tells AI systems everywhere, “You can make it, but you can’t own it.” As robots continue their relentless march toward mimicking human capabilities, writing pop songs, generating artwork, and even drafting legal briefs, the judiciary has stepped in to preserve at least one uniquely human privilege, that is, the right to be recognized as an author under copyright law.

While humans have been stealing ideas from each other for centuries and calling it “inspiration,” it seems our digital counterparts won’t get the same privilege. If a machine creates something beautiful, moving, or useful without human direction, who deserves the credit? According to the D.C. Circuit, the answer is clear, though perhaps not entirely satisfying to the growing army of silicon-based “creatives” churning out content across the digital landscape. This ruling ensures that even as AI systems create increasingly impressive works, they’ll remain the artistic equivalent of unpaid interns, doing all the work while someone else gets the credit.

The Case Background

Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who works with AI systems, created a generative AI called the “Creativity Machine.” This AI system produced an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” for which Dr. Thaler sought copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. Crucially, in his application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author of the work, while naming himself only as the owner of the copyright.

The Copyright Office denied the application based on its established human-authorship requirement, which states that for a work to be eligible for copyright registration, it must be authored by a human being. Dr. Thaler challenged this decision in federal court, but both the district court and now the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals have affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial.

Historical Context

The court’s decision also drew support from the Copyright Office’s long-standing interpretation of authorship. As early as 1966, the Register of Copyrights was already contemplating questions of authorship in relation to computer technology, and by 1973, the Copyright Office had formally adopted the human authorship requirement in its regulations.

In 1974, Congress created the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) to study how copyright law should adapt to new technologies. CONTU’s final report in 1978 affirmed that computers should be considered “inert instruments” controlled by humans, rather than authors in their own right.

Implications for AI-Generated Works

Importantly, the court clarified that the human authorship requirement does not prohibit copyright protection for works created with AI assistance. The rule simply requires that the author be the human who created, operated, or used the AI, not the machine itself.

Dr. Thaler’s case was unique in that he specifically listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author, making no claim that he himself contributed to the work’s creation. The Copyright Office has, in fact, allowed registration of works made by human authors who use AI as a tool, though there are ongoing discussions about where exactly to draw the line when AI plays a significant role in creation.

The Role of Congress

The court emphasized that major adaptations of copyright law to new technologies have historically been directed by Congress, not through courts reinterpreting established statutory terms. The opinion specifically notes that Congress and the Copyright Office are already studying how copyright law should respond to artificial intelligence, with the Copyright Office having issued recommendations as recently as January 2025.

The court declined to address the constitutional question of whether the Constitution’s Intellectual Property Clause itself requires human authorship, finding that the statutory interpretation was sufficient to decide the case.

Rejected Arguments

Dr. Thaler’s alternative arguments also failed to persuade the court. His claim that the work-made-for-hire provision of the Copyright Act should allow him to be considered the author (with the Creativity Machine as his employee) was rejected because the human authorship requirement applies to all copyrightable works, including those made for hire.

His second argument, that he should be considered the work’s author because he created and used the Creativity Machine, was deemed waived because he had not raised this argument before the Copyright Office.

The Court’s Decision and Reasoning

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial of Dr. Thaler’s copyright application, ruling that under the Copyright Act of 1976, only humans can be recognized as authors of copyrightable works.

The court’s decision rested on several findings. The Copyright Act requires that all works must be authored by a human being to be eligible for copyright protection. Dr. Thaler’s application was properly denied because he listed the “Creativity Machine” (his AI system) as the sole author of the artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” and the Creativity Machine is not human. The term “author” throughout the Copyright Act only makes sense when applied to human beings, as evidenced by multiple provisions:

Copyright ownership initially vests in the “author,” implying legal capacity to hold property
Copyright duration is tied to the author’s lifespan (life plus 70 years)
After an author’s death, termination rights pass to their widow, widower, children, or grandchildren
Copyright transfers require a signature from the owner
Authors are described as having nationalities, domiciles, and intentions

The court noted that machines lack all attributes that the Copyright Act presumes authors possess, they have no property rights, human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, or ability to sign documents or form intent. Whenever the Copyright Act mentions machines, they are consistently characterized as tools used by human authors, not as authors themselves. The court dismissed Dr. Thaler’s claim that he should be considered the author under the work-made-for-hire doctrine.

Importantly, the court clarified that this ruling doesn’t prevent copyright protection for works created with AI assistance, it simply requires that the author be the human who created, operated, or used the AI, not the machine itself.

Looking Forward

While the decision clarifies that machines themselves cannot hold copyrights, it leaves open many questions about the precise degree of human creativity required for copyright protection when AI tools are involved.

As generative AI becomes more sophisticated and autonomous, these questions will only grow more difficult. For now, the court has made clear that any policy changes to accommodate these new technological realities must come from Congress, not the judiciary.

The case sets an important precedent in the emerging field of AI and intellectual property rights, establishing clear boundaries while acknowledging that technology will continue to evolve in ways that may eventually require legislative attention.