US Appeals Court Rules AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted, Reinforcing Human Authorship

Court Ruling: AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted

The debate over whether artificial intelligence (AI) creations can be copyrighted has taken a significant turn.

In a recent legal decision, a US appeals court affirmed that art created entirely by AI, with no human involvement, does not qualify for copyright protection under US law.

Human Authorship Remains Essential for Copyright

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the US Copyright Office, which had rejected a copyright application from Stephen Thaler for an artwork his AI system, Dabus, allegedly created.

The court ruled that only works with human authors can be copyrighted, reinforcing a longstanding principle in intellectual property law.

This ruling adds to the growing body of legal challenges as the rise of generative AI continues to raise questions about the boundaries of copyright.

The Copyright Office has also previously denied copyright claims for AI-assisted works, such as those generated using the system Midjourney.

Thaler's Legal Battle with Copyright Authorities

Thaler, a researcher from Missouri, applied for copyright protection in 2018 for the piece titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, claiming that his AI system independently created the image.

The artwork "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" that has been rejected by the Copyright Office. (Source: Copyright Review Board)

However, the Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022, asserting that works must have human authors to be eligible for copyright.

In 2023, a district court judge in Washington upheld the decision, stating that human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright law.

Thaler, in his appeal to the federal court, warned that the ruling could “discourage investment and labor in a critically new and important developing field.”

Court Reinforces Human-Only Authorship in Copyright Cases

Writing for the three-judge panel, US Circuit Judge Patricia Millett stated that US copyright law “requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”

The court explained that many provisions of the Copyright Act only make sense when applied to human authors, affirming that human authorship is necessary for registration.

Thaler’s attorney, Ryan Abbott, voiced strong disagreement with the decision, stating that they intend to appeal.

The Copyright Office, however, expressed confidence in the court’s decision, stating that it “believes the court reached the correct result.”

As the legal landscape surrounding AI-generated content evolves, how do you think copyright laws should adapt to address the growing role of artificial intelligence in creative works?