On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered its awaited decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter case, definitively rejecting Stephen Thaler’s attempt to register copyright for the AI-generated artwork ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’. The ruling, closely aligned with the approach shown by U.S. Courts in numerous previous decisions[1], reaffirms the ‘human authorship’ requirement under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and, in doing so, highlights the growing distance between statutory language and technological evolution.
Background and Legal Trajectory of the Thaler Case
In the early 1990s Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist and a pioneer in the generative AI and IP landscape, developed ‘Creativity Machine’ a generative AI system that, in Thaler’s own words, autonomously produced the artwork at issue.
In 2018 Thaler filed a copyright registration, listing himself as the copyright claimant but naming his ‘Creativity Machine’ as the sole author. In February 2022, after several denials by the competent first-instance offices, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (‘USCO’) issued a final administrative denial of Thaler’s copyright application[2], based on its established ‘human authorship’ requirement — a condition explicitly unmet in the case at hand, as a result of Thaler’s express (and intentionally provocative) choice to list the AI as the sole author.
Thaler then sought judicial review, stating that neither the Constitution nor the Copyright Act explicitly mandates human authorship, and that denying protection to an original, creative work merely because it was generated by an AI is bad policy that undermines the incentive structure of copyright law. Nevertheless, in August 2023, the District Court of Columbia upheld the USCO’s decision, stating that ‘human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright’[3]. Persisting in his challenge, Thaler appealed once again, and the case proceeded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (‘Court of Appeals’ or ‘Court’).
The decision of the Court of Appeals
In its detailed decision issued on March 18, 2025[4], the Court of Appeals stated that, although the Copyright Act does not explicitly define ‘author’ as a human being, that meaning is implicit, based on longstanding judicial interpretation, as well as on numerous statutory provisions of the Act — such as those relating to the life of the author and inheritance rights — which presuppose a human subject[5].
The Court of Appeals also rejected Thaler’s alternative arguments under which, based on several legal theories (including the ‘work-made-for-hire’ doctrine), authorship on the AI-generated work should revert to him, reaffirming that human authorship is required even in such cases.
Additionally, Thaler’s late-stage claim that copyright in the AI’s work would transfer to him as inventor of the AI or as the hardware’s owner was deemed procedurally waived, as it was neither properly raised before the USCO nor adequately preserved in his appeal[6].
Brief considerations on the Court of Appeals’ decision
As said, the outcome of this decision was largely expected and it aligns with earlier precedents, such as the famous monkey selfie case Naruto v. Slater[7] and the recent Allen v. Perlmutter case[8], which similarly emphasized the centrality of human authorship in U.S. copyright law according to established local case-law.
Notably, the Court of Appeals’ decision leaves open how courts might view works where an AI is used as a tool under meaningful human direction (so-called ‘AI-assisted’ works), since Thaler deliberately labelled the artwork as autonomously conceived by the AI[9].
Moreover, and most importantly, the Court of Appeals – addressing one of the arguments most frequently advanced by proponents of AI-authorship – noted that if the human-authorship requirement eventually ‘stymies the creation of original work’ that is a dilemma for Congress to address, not the Courts[10].
Invoking a cardinal principle of judicial restraint the Court refused to venture beyond the statute’s clear requirements to consider what might be good policy in the age of creative AI[11]. Instead, the decision underscored that the proper forum for tackling AI and copyright is the legislative process and expert agencies. In support, the opinion pointed out that the political branches have already begun examining how copyright law should adapt to AI.
For instance, in 2023 the USCO launched a public study on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, seeking input on how the existing frameworks apply to AI-generated outputs and whether law reforms are needed[12]. Likewise, a bipartisan House of Representatives Task Force on AI issued a comprehensive report in late 2024 addressing IP challenges posed by AI, signalling that Congress is actively ‘grappling’ with these issues[13]. In the Court’s reasoning: ‘Congress and the Copyright Office are the proper audiences for Dr. Thaler’s policy and practical arguments’[14].
By highlighting these developments, the Court of Appeals effectively (and correctly) emphasized that any expansion of authorship to non-humans or any new sui generis protections eventually crafted for AI-generated works lie in the hands of lawmakers (whose interventions are closely watched by IP professionals worldwide).
Ultimately, the Court’s recognition that these complex issues shall be addressed legislatively is both prudent and necessary. As indicated by ongoing initiatives within the USCO and Congress, the legal framework will inevitably need to evolve to reflect the realities of contemporary creative processes.
For the time being, however, the protection of AI-generated content remains firmly beyond the reach of U.S. copyright law.
[1] See, amongst many, the Allen vs. Perlmutter case, as commented in a previous article published on this blog on November, 19, 2024, titled “The digital author – An AI artist challenges the USCO’s decision that an ‘AI-assisted’ artwork is not eligible for copyright protection” available at the following link: https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-digital-author-an-ai-artist-challenges-the-uscos-decision-that-an-ai-assisted-artwork-is-not-eligible-for-copyright-protection/.
[2] See USCO, Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Correspondence ID 1-3ZPC6C3; SR # 1-7100387071) of 14th February 2022.
[3] See U.S. District Court of Columbia, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 22-1564, 18th August 2023, p. 8.
[4] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 23-5233, 18th March 2025.
[5] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 9-11.
[6] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 23.
[7] See Naruto vs. Slater, Case No. 16-15469, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 23rd April 2018 (animal lacks statutory standing to claim copyright).
[8] See Allen v. Perlmutter, Case No. 1:24-cv-02665, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 26th September 2024.
[9] Contrarily to Mr. Allen, who, in Allen v. Perlmutter case, argued that he should retain authorship based on the complex and constant instructions and inputs he gave to the AI system, which merely functioned as his tool (see https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-digital-author-an-ai-artist-challenges-the-uscos-decision-that-an-ai-assisted-artwork-is-not-eligible-for-copyright-protection/)
[10] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 21.
[11] Stating that: ‘This court’s job, by contrast, “is to apply the statute as it is written,” not to wade into technologically uncharted copyright waters and try to decide what “might ‘accord with good policy’ (see ibidem).
[12] SeeUSCO, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas at 57 (Jul. 31, 2024), https://perma.cc/8CUH-DN5A (recommending a statutory right for individuals to sue those who make deepfakes with their likeness); USCO, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability at 32-40 (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/W9VR-TLQP (recommending against changing the law governing the copyrightability of AI-generated works).
[13] See U.S. House of Rep., Bipartisan House Task Force Report on Artificial Intelligence at 111-136 (Dec. 2024), https://perma.cc/Y69R-DM3D
[14] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 22.