130 F.4th 1039
D.C. Cir.2025Background
- Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system called the Creativity Machine, which autonomously generated an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."
- Dr. Thaler applied to the U.S. Copyright Office to register the artwork, listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author and himself as the owner.
- The Copyright Office denied the application, citing its longstanding policy that only human-created works are eligible for copyright.
- Thaler challenged the denial through the Office's reconsideration process, the Review Board, and then sought judicial review in federal district court.
- Both the Copyright Office and the district court affirmed denial, finding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship for copyright protection.
- Thaler appealed, raising statutory, constitutional, and policy arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a non-human machine/AI be the author under the Copyright Act? | "Author" is not limited to humans; AI can originate works. | Authorship under the Act requires a human being. | No, the Act requires human authorship. |
| Work-made-for-hire doctrine applicability to AI | He should be author as AI’s employer under work-made-for-hire | Work-made-for-hire still requires initial human authorship. | Doctrine does not extend authorship to AI. |
| Constitutionality of human authorship requirement | Human requirement is unconstitutional and outdated. | Human authorship supported by statute and history. | Did not reach since statute decided outcome. |
| Dr. Thaler as author by directing/using the AI | He is author through supervision and direction of AI. | Argument waived/not preserved at agency or district level. | Waived, not reached on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court held author in copyright sense must be human)
- Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (Described vesting of copyright initially in the author)
- Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. held copyright authors must be human)
- Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. rejected animal authorship for copyright)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (Defined scope of work-made-for-hire doctrine)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (Public-benefit purpose of copyright and adapting to new technology)