Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025).

The recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Thaler v. Perlmutter has reaffirmed that human authorship is essential for claiming copyright protection for works under the US Copyright Act and upheld the US Copyright Office’s refusal of a copyright application, filed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, for registration of an AI generated artwork.

Dr. Thaler filed an application seeking copyright registration of an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, which was generated by his generative AI software the “Creativity Machine”. In his application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author of the work and himself as the work’s owner. The Copyright Office denied the application on the ground that the work, admittedly, lacked human authorship. Dr. Thaler challenged this decision, first before Review Board of the Copyright Office, and then before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Dr. Thaler challenged the human authorship requirement of the US Copyright Office as unconstitutional and also sought to invoke the work-for-hire doctrine to support his clam that his AI software could be recognised as the author of the work. Additionally, Dr. Thaler also claimed that before the District Court for the District Court of Columbia that the artwork is copyrightable because he had provided instructions and directed the AI which led to the generation of the subject artwork. Both the challenges, however, proved unsuccessful, pursuant to which, the matter reached the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals has now upheld the District Court verdict and dismissed Dr. Thaler’s appeal, observing that the term “author” under the US Copyright Act can only be stated to mean humans and not machines. The Court interpreted the scheme of the US Copyright Act, relying on the provisions about the existence of copyright being premised on the author’s legal capacity to hold property, the term of the copyright being tied to the author’s lifespan, the inheritance provision empowering the widow/children of the author with certain powers of the author, and so on. Basis these provisions, the Court concluded that the necessary corollary of these provisions could only be that the author is a human being and not a machine. The Court also observed that machines, at best, could only be recognised as tools used by humans in the creative process while creating works, as opposed to being considered creators in their own right. Lastly, the Court refused to consider Dr. Thaler’s alternate argument seeking to claim authorship over the work for himself, observing that Dr. Thaler had himself waived this argument before the District Court and had not even challenged that observation in the appeal.

Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025).

Click here to read the judgment copy