Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter
Not provided in text (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Copyright Act of 1976 requires a work to be created by a human being to be eligible for copyright protection. A work generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence system without human authorship cannot be copyrighted.
Facts:
- Dr. Stephen Thaler created a generative artificial intelligence system named the 'Creativity Machine'.
- The Creativity Machine generated a piece of visual art without human intervention.
- Dr. Thaler titled the artwork 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise'.
- Dr. Thaler filed an application with the U.S. Copyright Office to register the work.
- On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the 'Creativity Machine' as the sole author.
- Dr. Thaler listed himself as the claimant of the copyright, distinct from the author.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Thaler submitted a copyright application to the U.S. Copyright Office, listing an AI system as the author.
- The Copyright Office denied the application based on its human authorship requirement.
- Thaler's request for reconsideration was denied by the Copyright Office's Registration Program.
- Thaler appealed to the Copyright Office's Review Board, which affirmed the denial, constituting final agency action.
- Thaler sought judicial review in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Copyright Office, affirming the denial of registration.
- Thaler, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Copyright Act of 1976 permit a work generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence system, without any human authorship, to be registered for copyright protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Millett
No. The Copyright Act of 1976 does not permit a work generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence system to be copyrighted because the statute requires human authorship. A textual analysis of the Act reveals that the term 'author' presupposes a human being. Multiple provisions refer to an author's 'life' and 'death' for copyright duration, termination rights for an author's 'widow' or 'children', and an author's 'nationality' or 'domicile', all of which are attributes of humanity. Furthermore, the Act consistently treats machines as inert tools used by human authors, not as authors themselves. This interpretation is reinforced by the Copyright Office's long-standing policy requiring human authorship, which Congress implicitly adopted when enacting the 1976 Act. The work-made-for-hire doctrine does not apply because it presupposes a work that is eligible for copyright in the first place, which a work lacking human authorship is not. It is the role of Congress, not the courts, to extend copyright protection to new forms of technology.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the human authorship requirement as a bedrock principle of U.S. copyright law, explicitly excluding works autonomously generated by AI from protection under the current statutory framework. It establishes a clear legal boundary that any claim to copyright must originate from human creativity, regardless of the sophistication of the tools used. The ruling firmly places the impetus on Congress to legislate any changes, effectively closing the door on judicial expansion of copyright to non-human creators and channeling policy debates about AI and intellectual property to the legislative branch.
