D.C. Circuit Affirms Human Authorship Requirement for Copyright Protection

On March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a significant decision in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the court affirmed the U.S. Copyright Office’s denial of copyright registration for a work that Dr. Stephen Thaler claimed had been autonomously generated by AI without any human involvement. Consistent with prior rulings by various circuit courts, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires human authorship, and a non-human machine cannot be recognized as the author of a copyrighted work.

The case arose from Dr. Thaler’s attempt to register copyright in A Recent Entrance to Paradise, a visual artwork he contended was created entirely by his AI system, the Creativity Machine, with no human input. Dr. Thaler listed the AI system as the sole author of the work and himself as the copyright claimant. The Copyright Office rejected the application, citing the longstanding principle that copyright law requires human authorship. Dr. Thaler challenged the decision in federal court, where both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit upheld the denial.

The appellate court closely examined the Copyright Act’s text and structure, emphasizing that multiple statutory provisions—including those governing ownership, duration, inheritance, and transferability—presuppose a human author. The court also relied on longstanding administrative and judicial interpretations, noting that the Copyright Office has consistently required human authorship as a condition of copyright registration. The court declined to address constitutional arguments regarding whether the U.S. Constitution itself mandates human authorship, deciding the case solely on statutory grounds.

This ruling aligns with how other courts have addressed non-human authorship. In Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit rejected an attempt to assert copyright in photographs taken by a wild ape, concluding that only humans can be considered authors under the Copyright Act.

Importantly, the Thaler decision does not prohibit copyright protection for works created with AI assistance, nor does it establish a strict rule on the level of human involvement required for a work to qualify for copyright. However, it reaffirms that AI-generated works lacking human creative input are not eligible for copyright. The ruling is generally consistent with the U.S. Copyright Office’s position, as reflected, for example, in its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence study series. The latest publication, Part 2: Copyrightability, released in January 2025.

The Thaler ruling has significant implications for individuals and businesses integrating AI into creative processes. Companies using AI to generate content should carefully evaluate the extent of human involvement in their workflows to ensure copyright protection. When seeking registration, applicants must also accurately disclose the role of AI in the creation of their works. The decision may further influence ongoing discussions about whether and how copyright law should evolve in response to emerging AI technologies.

If you have questions about how this decision affects your use of AI-generated content or the implications for works created using AI tools, please contact our copyright lawyers for further guidance.