A lot of new technology forces lawmakers and the courts to establish and enforce the rules under which it will operate. There's no denying that AI, particularly generative AI, is leading to a similar shakeup in the law.
FindLaw has previously written on lawsuits alleging generative AI has infringed copyrighted works. But what if artificial intelligence ends up creating its own technology?
In what may prove to be a precedent-setting decision regarding AI, on March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal court ruling that held AI couldn't claim authorship rights under the Copyright Act of 1976. The original application was turned down by the U.S. Copyright Office. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyrights Office, was named as the defendant.
Maybe Have It Come Up With a Better Name for Itself
Dr. Stephen Thaler is the founder, president, CEO, and chief engineer at Imagination Engines, Inc., a company that develops advanced AI systems. He earned his Ph.D in Physics at the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1981.
One of his generative AI models, Creativity Machine, produced an image Thaler named "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." In May 2019, Thaler submitted an application requesting copyright protection for the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. He listed Creativity Machine as the image's sole author and himself as the owner of the piece.
The application was denied by the Copyright Office, which explained that under the Copyright Act of 1976, all works are required to have a human as the author. Thaler filed suit in federal district court, which upheld the denial. On September 19, 2024, Thaler's arguments were presented to a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court.
If I Only Had a Heart
Thaler argued that by requiring a human author and not extending copyright protection to Creativity Machine's creation, it would create or solidify the perception that those in creative industries could freely copy an AI's output. He further claimed that rulings "from the Gilded Age" weren't meant to deal with issues raised by new technology.
The panel was not swayed. U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia A. Millett, Judith W. Rogers, and Senior Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins were unanimous in their view that removing the human factor would undermine copyright protection.
The panel reasoned that generative AI lacks the ability to own property, live atraditional human lifespan, have family members, possess a domicile, claim a nationality, be subject to mens rea, or even create a unique signature. Since copyright protection is linked to the author's life, it can't be applied to something that was never alive.
The decision is the second big ruling regarding generative AI in just over a month. A summary judgment was decreed for copyright infringement based on the illegal harvesting of information by AI and its subsequent usage in February 2025.
AI of the Needle
While the ruling sets a precedent and is designed to further construct the framework under which AI will function, the appeals court ruled under a very narrow scope. The panel didn't rule on whether any AI-generated product could qualify for copyright protection. Instead, it enforced the statute that requires the authorship to be given to a human.
This likely means a future case will deal with the issue of whether or not a creation with some level of generative AI input can receive copyright protection if the person who used it lists themselves as the author. The panel kicked that can down the road, stating that it didn't apply within the parameters of this particular case.
Related Resources
- Copyright Ownership: The Joint Authorship Doctrine (FindLaw's Intellectual Property)
- A Farewell to Copyrights: Works Entering the Public Domain in 2025 (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- 11th Circuit Experiment Holds Useful Lessons on the Use of Generative AI (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
