A US federal appeals court has ruled that a machine cannot be named as the author of a work, when a human submits it to the U.S. Copyright Office.
On March 18, 2025, a D.C. federal appeals court ruled in Thaler v. Perlmutter that the Copyright Office was right to reject Dr. Stephen Thaler’s claim for an AI-generated image called ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’ (pictured).
Thaler, a computer scientist, built a generative AI called the ‘Creativity Machine’, which produced the image on its own.
Thaler then tried to register the copyright of the image. He listed the ‘Creativity Machine’ as the sole author and himself as the owner of the work.
The Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s application, citing its long-standing rule that only works made by humans can get copyright.
Thaler appealed, but the federal court upheld the decision.
“The Creativity Machine cannot be the recognised 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,” said Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett.
AI can help humans, but not be the sole creator
There are, however, nuances when it comes to the use of AI and creating ‘work’.
In January 2025, a U.S. Copyright Office report declared that creators and artists can copyright works made with the help of AI.
An AI-assisted work may be copyrightable if the creator’s handiwork is perceptible.
A human adapting an AI-generated output with “creative arrangements or modifications” could also allow it copyright protections.
© 2024 Contenseo. All rights reserved.