Legal
Copyrights Still Require Human Authorship
Alloy Newsletter:
Insights into the intersection of AI, Law, and Business.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal of Thaler v. Perlmutter from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This was a case concerning the copyrightability of art generated by AI. Dr. Thaler (a computer scientist) attempted to register a piece of art that was "created autonomously" by a machine that he named the "Creativity Machine." Both the U.S. Copyright Office and the Trump Administration urged the Supreme Court to not take up Thaler's appeal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision was based on the fact that the machine was not a human and, therefore, could not possess rights in the work of art. The Court held that human authorship still remains a "bedrock requirement of copyright" ownership.
Importantly, the D.C. Court of Appeals, in denying the Creativity Machine ownership in the work of art, did note that "[t]he Copyright Office, in fact, has allowed the registration of works made by human authors who use artificial intelligence."
There is a pressing need for refined copyright laws to address ownership issues related to AI-generated art, code, and other work products. However, I agree that the Thaler case was not the appropriate platform for this decision. We need Congress to act first.
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf
