The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) has affirmed the district court’s denial of Dr. Steven Thaler’s copyright application of an artificial intelligence (“AI”) generated work.

Authors are Humans and Machines are Tools

In upholding the district court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals held that “[a]s a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human.” Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233, 2025 WL 839178, at *4 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (emphasis added).

The Court of Appeals held that the Copyright Act’s use of the term “author” is limited to human beings. Specifically, the Copyright Act (1) describes an author’s legal capacity to hold property; (2) “limits the duration of a copyright to the author’s lifespan or to a period that approximates how long a human might live”; (3) addresses an author’s “widow or widower,” or their “surviving children or grandchildren” for inheritance purposes; (4) requires a signature for transfer; (5) protects authors of unpublished works regardless of the author’s “nationality or domicile”; and (6) discusses an author’s intentions. Thaler, at *4–5. The Court of Appeals found that none of these descriptors could be applied to AI or machines. Id.

In contrast, the Court of Appeals held that the Copyright Act’s discussion of the term “machine” was limited to characterizing machines as “tools.” Id., at *4.

AI Cannot Create a Work-for-Hire

Dr. Thaler argued “that the Copyright Act’s work made-for-hire provision allows him to be ‘considered the author’ of the work at issue because the Creativity Machine is his employee”. Thaler, at *10.

The Court of Appeals flatly rejected Dr. Thaler’s argument because, “[t]hat argument misunderstands the human authorship requirement.” Id. The Creative Machine cannot be an author under the human authorship requirement and, therefore, Dr. Thaler could not have transferred the nonexistent copyright to himself via the work-for-hire doctrine. Id.

Human-Authorship Requirement Benefits the Public

Dr. Thaler argued that affirming the human-authorship requirement would wrongly prevent AI work from being protectable. Thaler, at *7. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Citing the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that, “copyright law is intended to benefit the public, not authors. . . . [And that] the primary object in conferring the monopoly lies in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 46-47 (1962) (cleaned up)).

Additionally, affirming the human-authorship requirement “does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence.” Thaler, at *8. The Court of Appeals, however, chose not to draw a bright line regarding how much AI can contribute to a human author’s work before it loses eligibility for copyright protection because, in this case, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author of the work.

Unreached Arguments

The Court of Appeals left several arguments raised by the parties unresolved because its decision was based on the text of the Copyright Act and the record before the court.

The Copyright Office argued that the Constitution of the United States itself requires human authorship within the Intellectual Property Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). However, “[b]ecause the Copyright Act itself requires human authorship, we need not and do not address the Copyright Office’s argument . . . .” Thaler, at *10.

For his part, Dr. Thaler argued that he is the work’s author because he made and used the Creativity Machine. Id. The Court of Appeals did not reach this argument. The Court of Appeals found that the district court held that Dr. Thaler waived the argument before the Copyright Office and Dr. Thaler failed to challenge the district court’s finding of waiver. Id.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision to uphold the human authorship requirement ended a long and highly anticipated battle between Dr. Thaler and the Copyright Office. Although Dr. Thaler could appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals’ decision appears to be consistent with historical Copyright Office practice and precedent in other circuits. The Court of Appeals’ decision, however, left open the critical question of whether Dr. Thaler could have been considered an author because he made and used the Creative Machine. This unanswered question is likely to be the focal point of further copyright debate and litigation.

_______________

About the Author:

Christopher T. Porter is a Minnesota copyright attorney serving Minneapolis and Rochester, Minnesota who handles disputes and registrations under the Copyright Act. He can be reached at cporter@trepanierlaw.com or at 612.455.6218. Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A. is a Minnesota business law firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota that handles Minnesota copyright law and Minnesota trademark law.