No Soul, No Copyright: Court Says AI Can’t Be an Author
April 3, 2025 | US Law Updates
Article by: Tom Zuber and Radhi Shah
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued a significant opinion at the intersection of intellectual property law and artificial intelligence. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, decided on March 18, 2025, the court upheld the Copyright Office’s refusal to register a visual artwork autonomously generated by an AI system, reaffirming that the Copyright Act protects only those works created by human beings. While unsurprising in outcome, the decision carries substantial implications for innovators, businesses, and legal practitioners navigating the rapidly evolving landscape of generative technologies.
Case Overview: Can AI Be an “Author”?
Dr. Stephen Thaler, the plaintiff, developed a computer system called the “Creativity Machine,” which he claims produced an original visual artwork without any human involvement. He attempted to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, identifying the AI as the author and himself as the owner based on his relationship to the machine. The Copyright Office denied the application, citing the absence of human authorship. Thaler then pursued judicial review, challenging the agency’s interpretation of the law.
At issue was whether a work created solely by an AI system—absent any human creative contribution—can be eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. Both the district court and now the D.C. Circuit have answered that question unequivocally in the negative.
The Court’s Legal Analysis: Statutory Interpretation and Constitutional Boundaries
In affirming the lower court’s dismissal, the D.C. Circuit conducted a careful textual and historical analysis of the Copyright Act. While the statute does not explicitly define “author,” the court reasoned that the term has always been understood to refer to a human being. The court noted that the structure and language of the Act—including references to concepts such as “person,” “heirs,” and “children”—imply that Congress intended authors to be natural persons, not machines.
The court also emphasized that the U.S. Constitution’s Copyright Clause empowers Congress to secure exclusive rights “to Authors” for “Writings.” These terms, the court explained, were historically and legally understood to refer to the original expression of human intellect. The opinion drew upon Supreme Court precedents and long-standing administrative practice in concluding that copyright protection is available only for works reflecting human creativity.
Of particular note, the court rejected Thaler’s argument that the AI functioned as an “employee” under the work-for-hire doctrine, making Thaler the rightful author and copyright owner. The court explained that the work-for-hire doctrine presumes a legal relationship between a human author and an employer or commissioning party. An autonomous machine does not and cannot satisfy that threshold.
The Administrative Perspective: Copyright Office Consistency
The decision aligns with the U.S. Copyright Office’s recent guidance on works involving AI. The Office has taken the position that copyright protection may extend to AI-assisted works only where the human contribution is sufficiently creative and the result reflects the author’s original expression. Merely prompting an AI system, without meaningful control over the expressive outcome, is not enough.
The Copyright Office has also begun requiring applicants to disclose the use of AI in the creation of a work and to exclude purely AI-generated content from the scope of registration. In this context, Thaler confirms that the Office’s position is both legally sound and judicially supported.
Implications for Businesses and Creative Industries
For companies and creators integrating generative AI tools into their workflows, this decision draws an important legal boundary. If an AI system produces content without significant human input—whether text, images, music, or code—that content is not eligible for copyright protection under current U.S. law.
This has practical ramifications for intellectual property strategy. Companies should take care to document the role of human authors in the creative process when using AI-assisted tools, particularly in industries where content ownership is central—such as entertainment, advertising, design, publishing, and software development.
Moreover, businesses may need to consider alternative protections, including trade secret safeguards, contract-based rights (e.g., licenses, NDAs), or trademark strategies, to secure competitive advantage and control over the use of AI-generated materials. Terms of service for AI platforms may also need closer scrutiny to understand who owns the outputs and what rights users retain.
The International Dimension: Comparative Legal Uncertainty
It is worth noting that global consensus on this issue remains elusive. While U.S. courts have drawn a firm line against machine authorship, other jurisdictions are still grappling with the question. For example, the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 contains a provision that identifies the “person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” as the author of computer-generated works. Meanwhile, jurisdictions like China and the EU continue to explore regulatory approaches to AI and intellectual property through ongoing legislative and policy initiatives.
Cross-border businesses and multinational content creators must therefore navigate a fragmented global landscape where the copyright status of AI-generated works may vary widely.
Looking Ahead: Legislative Possibilities and Policy Debates
The D.C. Circuit acknowledged that the role of AI in the creative process is a rapidly developing area and that Congress may eventually choose to revisit the boundaries of authorship in light of technological change. Whether that involves expanding the scope of copyright to recognize certain forms of machine-generated work, or developing a new legal framework altogether, remains to be seen.
For now, however, the court has made clear that the existing legal framework is grounded in the presumption that authors are human. Absent congressional action, the Copyright Act will continue to protect only those works that reflect the creative expression of a person.
Conclusion
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter reinforces the bedrock principle that copyright law is designed to protect human creativity. As generative AI systems become more sophisticated, courts and agencies are signaling a consistent reluctance to extend copyright protections to machine-made outputs. Legal and business stakeholders must adapt accordingly—by refining their creative processes, rethinking IP strategies, and anticipating future legislative developments.
Attorneys advising clients on IP matters in the age of AI must stay attuned not only to judicial precedent but also to regulatory guidance and international developments. The contours of authorship may evolve, but for now, the law remains rooted in its human origins.
Disclaimer: This content may be an attorney advertisement. The information provided on this website does not constitute legal advice. All information, content, and materials available on this website are for general informational purposes only, and might not be up to date. The content on this website is provided “as is,” and no representations are made that the content is free of error. Usage of this website or any resources contained within it does not create an attorney-client relationship between user and Zuber Lawler (or any of its attorneys). Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. Any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this website are hereby expressly disclaimed.
Recent Updates
An FDA Panel Just Voted to Widen Access to Peptides. Here’s What It Actually Means for the Longevity Space July 30, 2026
Generative AI Legal Issues: 5 Critical Questions Every Business Must Answer Before Deploying AI Solutions May 21, 2026
Medical Rescheduling, Recreational Risk: How Schedule III Could Reshape Adult-Use Cannabis February 18, 2026
Schedule III Cannabis: FDA’s New Frontier January 27, 2026
Data Privacy and AI in Longevity: Legal Risks Around Predictive Biomarkers and Health Data January 23, 2026
2026 Employment Law Developments: Key Takeaways for Employers December 22, 2025