In 2019, Stephen Thaler filed an unusual copyright application. Instead of submitting traditional artwork, the piece—titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (image at top)—identified an unusual “creator”: the “Creativity Machine.” The Creativity Machine is an AI system invented by Thaler. In his application for registration, Thaler informed the Copyright Office that the work was “created autonomously by machine,” and he claimed the copyright based on his “ownership of the machine.”
After appealing the Copyright Office denial of registration to the District Court and losing, Thaler appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
On March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Copyright Office as well as the District Court, holding that copyright protection under the 1976 Act cannot be granted to a work generated solely by artificial intelligence.
Notably, this ruling does not exclude AI-assisted works from protection; it merely confirms that a human must exercise genuine creative control. The key question now is how much human input is necessary to qualify as the author—a point the court left open for future clarification.
Here are the key takeaways:
Human Authorship Is Mandatory. The court held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires an “author” to be a human being. Works generated solely by AI—where AI is listed as the sole creator—do not qualify. Under the Copyright Act “author” means human. A machine, including an AI system, is not a legal creator.
AI-Assisted Works May Still Be Protected. The court underscored that human creators remain free to use AI tools. Such works can be copyrighted, provided a person (not just AI) exercises creative control. This is consistent with the recently released Copyright Office Report on ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (Part 2), which confirms that the use of AI tools to assist human creativity is not a bar for copyright protection of the output as long as there is sufficient human control over the expressive elements.
A Single Piece of American Cheese
In fact, on January 30, 2025, the Copyright Office registered A Single Piece of American Cheese, based on the “selection, coordination, and arrangement of material generated by artificial intelligence”. (Image at left). See How We Received The First Copyright for a Single Image Created Entirely with AI-Generated Material.
Work-Made-for-Hire Doesn’t Save AI-Only Authorship. Dr. Thaler’s argument that AI could be his “employee” under the work-for-hire doctrine failed because the underlying creation must still have a human author in the first place.
Waived Argument. Dr. Thaler tried to claim he was effectively the author by directing the AI. The court found he had not properly raised this argument at the administrative level and therefore declined to consider it. This might have been his best argument, had he made it.
Policy Questions Left to Congress. While noting that new AI technologies could raise important policy issues, the court emphasized that it is for Congress, not the judiciary, to expand copyright beyond human authors.
Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Cir. Mar. 20, 2025)
(For an earlier post on this case see: Court Denies Copyright Protection to AI Generated Artwork.)