Court Affirms AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted, Human Authorship Required

The intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law continues to evolve, with a recent federal appeals court decision establishing a clear boundary. On Tuesday, the court in Washington, D.C. definitively ruled that artwork created solely by AI systems, without meaningful human input, cannot receive copyright protection under U.S. law. This ruling reinforces human authorship as an essential requirement for copyright eligibility.

The DABUS Case: A Landmark Decision

March 18 – A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday affirmed that a work of art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law.

At the center of this case is Stephen Thaler and his AI system called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). Thaler sought copyright protection for an image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” claiming it was created entirely by his AI system without human intervention.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that an image created by Stephen Thaler’s AI system “DABUS” was not entitled to copyright protection, and that only works with human authors can be copyrighted.

This ruling reflects the historical underpinnings of copyright law, which was designed to protect human intellectual labor and creativity. By rejecting Thaler’s claim, the court has established that while AI may be a powerful creative tool, it cannot be considered an “author” in the legal sense.

The Rise of Generative AI and Copyright Challenges

The rapid advancement of generative AI technologies has forced legal systems worldwide to reconsider existing frameworks. These powerful tools can now produce sophisticated text, images, music, and video that closely resemble human-created content.

Tuesday’s ruling marks the latest attempt by U.S. officials to grapple with the copyright implications of the fast-growing generative AI industry. The Copyright Office has separately rejected artists’ bids for copyrights on images generated by the AI system Midjourney.

The core issue revolves around the concept of “authorship.” Traditional copyright law is inextricably linked to human creativity. AI systems operate based on algorithms and training data, raising fundamental questions about whether their outputs can be considered truly “creative” in the legal sense. Both the Copyright Office and now the courts have consistently answered “no.”

Human Authorship: The “Bedrock Requirement”

An important distinction emerges in this case: “The artists argued they were entitled to copyrights for images they created with AI assistance — unlike Thaler, who said that his ‘sentient’ system created the image in his case independently.”

This highlights a crucial difference between AI-assisted creation, where humans maintain creative control, and supposedly autonomous AI creation, which challenges the foundation of copyright law.

Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbott said he and his client “strongly disagree” with the ruling and intend to appeal. The Copyright Office said in a statement that it “believes the court reached the correct result.”

Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for a copyright in 2018 covering “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” a piece of visual art he said was made by his AI system. The office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be copyrightable.

A federal district court judge in Washington upheld the decision in 2023 and said human authorship is a “bedrock requirement of copyright” based on “centuries of settled understanding.” Thaler told the D.C. Circuit that the ruling threatened to “discourage investment and labor in a critically new and important developing field.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel on Tuesday that U.S. copyright law “requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”

The court further explained: “Because many of the Copyright Act’s provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration.”

Implications and Future Challenges

“This ruling clarifies the current legal landscape, but it doesn’t end the conversation,” said Dr. Eleanor Vance, a legal scholar specializing in intellectual property and artificial intelligence. “The rapid evolution of AI technology will continue to push the boundaries of copyright law.”

The “Human Input” Gray Area

A significant challenge lies in defining the threshold of “human input” required for copyright protection. While the court rejected works created solely by AI, the line between AI-assisted and AI-generated content remains blurry. Artists who incorporate AI tools into their creative process may find themselves navigating uncertain legal terrain.

For example, if an artist uses an AI image generator to create a base image and then substantially modifies it, at what point does the human contribution become sufficient for copyright protection? This question will likely require further legal clarification as these technologies become more integrated into creative workflows.

International Perspectives

The U.S. approach is not universal. Other jurisdictions have developed different frameworks for addressing computer-generated works. The United Kingdom, for instance, grants copyright to the person who made the arrangements for the creation of a computer-generated work, even without direct human authorship of the content itself. These divergent approaches highlight the lack of global consensus on this issue.

The Future of Creativity and Innovation

This case raises fundamental questions about the future of creativity in the age of artificial intelligence. Will denying copyright protection to AI-generated works stifle innovation and investment in these technologies? Or will it protect human artists and ensure that copyright law continues to serve its original purpose of incentivizing human creativity?

As AI technologies continue to advance, the legal framework surrounding intellectual property will need to evolve accordingly. The interplay between copyright law and generative AI will undoubtedly remain a subject of ongoing debate, shaping our understanding of authorship, creativity, and ownership in the digital age.