687 F.Supp.3d 140
D.D.C.2023Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns an AI system called the “Creativity Machine” that autonomously produced a visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
- Thaler applied to register the work, naming the Creativity Machine as the author and asserting ownership as the machine’s owner.
- The U.S. Copyright Office denied registration because the work lacked human authorship; two reconsideration requests and the Copyright Office Review Board affirmed the denial.
- Thaler sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the Office’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the sole legal question presented was whether a work autonomously generated by a computer is copyrightable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a work autonomously generated by an AI is copyrightable | Thaler: AI-generated works should be eligible for copyright, with ownership vesting in the machine’s owner (via property principles or work-for-hire etc.) | Defs: Copyright protects only human-created works; non-human creations are not within the Act’s authorship requirement | Court: Denied registration; human authorship is required, so an autonomously generated work is not copyrightable |
| Whether transfer doctrines (work-for-hire, property transfer) can vest copyright in Thaler | Thaler: Even if AI created the work, ownership can pass to him under common law or as a work-made-for-hire | Defs: Transfer doctrines presuppose an existing copyright; absent authorship there is nothing to transfer | Court: Declined to reach these theories because no valid copyright ever arose for this work |
| Whether the court may consider new factual claims that Thaler supervised or directed the AI | Thaler: Now asserts he provided instructions/control that would support human authorship | Defs: Review is limited to the administrative record, which states the work was autonomously generated | Court: Constrained to the administrative record; plaintiff’s later factual assertions contradict that record and are not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) (photograph protected where human author conceived and arranged the image)
- Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) (copyrightable work must be the author’s tangible expression of ideas)
- Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) (broad view of “writings” to encompass new media)
- Fourth Estate v. Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) (copyright exists upon creation; registration confirms existence)
- Urantia Found. v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) (works claimed to be authored by divine sources require human creative contribution to be copyrightable)
- Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) (animals lack standing under the Copyright Act; authorship implies humanity)
- Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011) (garden not copyrightable; authors must be human)