## Facts

- Dr. Stephen Thaler developed and owned an AI system called the “Creativity Machine.”
- Thaler asserted the system autonomously generated a visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
- Thaler applied to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, identifying the Creativity Machine as the sole author.
- Thaler listed himself as the copyright claimant based on ownership of the machine and asserted the work was a work made for hire to the machine’s owner.
- The Copyright Office refused registration because the work lacked human authorship.
- After two denied requests for reconsideration, the Office’s Review Board issued a final refusal stating it would not register works not created by a human being.
- Thaler sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the refusal was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Copyright Act permits copyright registration for a work generated entirely by an AI system without human involvement.
2. Whether the Copyright Office acted unlawfully under the APA by denying registration on the ground that the work lacked human authorship.
3. Whether ownership of the AI system or a work-made-for-hire theory can confer copyright where no human author is claimed.

## Decision

- The court denied Thaler’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion.
- The court upheld the Copyright Office’s final refusal to register the work.
- The court held that human authorship is required for copyright protection and that a work generated entirely by an AI system, as presented in the application, is not copyrightable.
- The court rejected Thaler’s arguments that he could claim copyright based on machine ownership or work-made-for-hire principles.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protection under the Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act requires an “author,” which the court construed as a human creator exercising creative control.
- A work must reflect human intellectual conception; copyright has not extended to works produced absent a guiding human hand.
- The Copyright Office may refuse registration where it determines a work was not created by a human being, including works produced by an automatic process without human creative input.
- Work-made-for-hire doctrine presupposes a copyrightable work and a qualifying author; it cannot create copyright where the work is ineligible due to lack of human authorship.
- Ownership of a tool or machine that generates expressive output does not, by itself, confer authorship or copyright.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that current copyright law requires human authorship and affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial of registration because the application claimed the work was created autonomously by an AI system with no human author.


Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023)