Copyright Law
Federal Court Rules AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted
March 19, 2025, 11:05 AM CDT
A federal appeals court has ruled that a work of art produced solely by AI systems cannot be copyrighted. (Image from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently delivered a pivotal ruling regarding copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI). In a case involving computer scientist Stephen Thaler and his AI program known as the “Creativity Machine,” the court determined that works created exclusively by AI lack eligibility for copyright protection.
Thaler sought to claim copyright for an artwork generated by his system, arguing for the recognition of the AI as an author. However, the court ruled against him, citing that the Copyright Act of 1976 explicitly requires authorship to be attributed to a human. Judge Patricia Millett, who authored the opinion, stated, “The Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”
The court indicated that it did not need to explore the U.S. Copyright Office’s assertions regarding the constitutional requirement for human authorship of copyrighted material. Additionally, Thaler had forfeited the argument that his involvement in the creation and use of the Creativity Machine could grant him copyright rights over the artwork produced.
Notably, the D.C. Circuit’s decision does not preclude the possibility of copyright when AI collaborates with human authors. The ruling emphasizes that as long as a human is credited as the author—such as the person who created, operated, or utilized the AI—they can obtain copyright for the resultant work. Judge Millett clarified, “The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being.”
Despite the ruling, there have been instances where the Copyright Office has denied copyright applications, even when a human is identified as the author, due to complexities surrounding human involvement versus AI contribution.
In this particular case, the appeals court noted that “line-drawing disagreements” regarding the extent of AI’s contribution were irrelevant, as Thaler had designated the Creativity Machine as the exclusive author of the artwork in question.
Thaler plans to challenge this decision, as stated by his attorney, Ryan Abbott, who expressed intentions to appeal the ruling.
