AI Can Do Many Things, But Being an ‘Author’ Isn’t One of Them

A Recent Entrance to Paradise

The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2025 WL 839178 (D.C. Cir. March 18, 2025), reaffirms a core principle of U.S. copyright law: only human-authored works qualify for copyright protection. This ruling aligns with longstanding interpretations by the U.S. Copyright Office and underscores the legal limitations of AI-generated content in the realm of intellectual property. The case has profound implications for businesses and creators leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in creative processes, particularly as AI-generated works become more prevalent in various industries.

Case Background

Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist, sought to register a copyright for an AI-generated artwork, A Recent Entrance to Paradise, listing his AI system, the "Creativity Machine," as the sole author. The U.S. Copyright Office denied the registration, citing the longstanding requirement that only human-created works are eligible for copyright protection. Thaler challenged this decision, arguing that the human authorship requirement lacked a statutory basis and was unconstitutional. After the district court upheld the Copyright Office’s decision, Thaler appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Legal Basis for the Court’s Decision

The appellate court upheld the district court’s ruling, emphasizing that human authorship is a fundamental prerequisite for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976. The court relied on multiple provisions of the Act, including:

1. Ownership and Transferability: The Copyright Act grants ownership rights to authors, who must have legal capacity to own property (17 U.S.C. §201). Machines, including AI systems, do not possess such legal capacity.

2. Duration of Copyright: The Act determines copyright duration based on the author's lifespan (17 U.S.C. §302). This provision inherently assumes human authorship, as AI does not have a finite lifespan.

3. Inheritance and Transfer: The Act provides that copyright interests pass to an author’s heirs or estate upon death (17 U.S.C. §203). This presumes the author is a human being with inheritable assets.

4. Work-for-Hire Doctrine: Thaler argued that corporations are recognized as authors under the work-for-hire doctrine (17 U.S.C. §201(b)). However, the court clarified that corporations are only deemed authors in specific contexts, and the doctrine presupposes human creators behind the work.

Implications for AI-Generated Content

The decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter raises significant questions for industries that integrate AI into content creation, particularly in fields such as software development, digital art, music composition, and journalism. Key takeaways include:

1. AI as a Tool, Not an Author: While AI can assist human creators, it cannot hold authorship status under current copyright law. To ensure copyright protection, AI-generated content must demonstrate significant human input and originality.

2. Uncertainty in Hybrid Works: The ruling does not resolve the complex issue of AI-assisted works where human authors contribute meaningfully but rely heavily on AI tools. Future litigation and policy developments will likely shape this area.

3. Potential Need for Legislative Reform: Given the rapid advancement of generative AI, lawmakers may consider amending copyright statutes to clarify the legal status of AI-assisted works. The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report already recommends a case-by-case assessment of AI-generated works for potential human creativity elements.

4. Impact on AI-Generated Software Code: AI-assisted coding tools, such as GitHub Copilot, raise concerns similar to those in Thaler. If AI-generated content lacks sufficient human authorship, companies relying on such code may face challenges in asserting copyright protection.

The Thaler v. Perlmutter decision reinforces the principle that copyright law, as it currently stands, does not recognize AI as an author. This ruling provides crucial clarity for businesses and content creators navigating AI’s role in creative processes. As AI technology evolves, future legal and legislative developments may further refine the intersection of AI and copyright law. In the meantime, companies leveraging AI for content creation should carefully structure their processes to ensure human involvement in ways that meet copyright eligibility requirements and consult an attorney if they have any doubts.

©2025 East West General Counsel. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between East West General Counsel and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of East West General Counsel.