In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the federal courts held that a work generated entirely by an artificial intelligence system, with no human creative involvement, cannot be registered for copyright because U.S. copyright law requires a human author. The D.C. Circuit affirmed that rule in March 2025, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in March 2026, leaving the human-authorship requirement settled across the federal system.1United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter2Supreme Court of the United States. Stephen Thaler, Petitioner v. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, et al.
The Work and the Application That Started the Case
Stephen Thaler tried to register a digital image called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” showing a landscape with a railway track, greenery, and purple flowers. He did not draw it. An AI system he built, the “Creativity Machine,” produced the image autonomously, without prompts or guiding creative input from him.
On the application, Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author. He named himself as the claimant and argued that ownership should transfer to him because he owned the machine, framing the arrangement as a work made for hire. In his application notes, he stated the work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.”3U.S. Copyright Office. Review Board – A Recent Entrance to Paradise
This was a deliberate test case. Thaler set it up to force a single question: can a non-human entity be the author of a copyrighted work?
How the Case Moved Through the Courts
A Copyright Office registration specialist denied the application in August 2019 for lack of human authorship. Thaler asked for reconsideration twice. The Copyright Office Review Board issued the final refusal in February 2022, finding that authorship inherently requires a human creator under the statute, longstanding Office practice, and judicial precedent.3U.S. Copyright Office. Review Board – A Recent Entrance to Paradise
Thaler sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the Copyright Act never expressly says an author must be human. Judge Beryl A. Howell granted summary judgment against him in August 2023, holding that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.”4Justia. Thaler v. Perlmutter et al
The D.C. Circuit affirmed on March 18, 2025.1United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter Thaler then petitioned the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, without comment.2Supreme Court of the United States. Stephen Thaler, Petitioner v. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, et al. A denial of certiorari is not an endorsement of the lower ruling on the merits, but the D.C. Circuit opinion stands as the final word.
Why the Courts Said Only Humans Can Be Authors
The D.C. Circuit built its ruling on the text of the Copyright Act itself. Copyright ownership “vests initially in the author,” and because copyright is a property right, an entity that cannot own property cannot be an author. The statute measures copyright duration by “the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death,” language that assumes a living person. Inheritance provisions reference an author’s “widow or widower” and “surviving children or grandchildren.” Transfer requires a signed instrument. Joint authorship requires “intention” among multiple authors. None of these provisions can sensibly apply to a machine.1United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter
The court also noted that the Copyright Act defines a “computer program” as instructions used to “bring about a certain result” and treats machines as tools that assist authors rather than as authors themselves.1United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter
The work-for-hire argument failed for a related reason. A work-for-hire arrangement transfers an existing copyright from the actual creator to the employer.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 201 – Ownership of Copyright If the AI cannot be an author, no copyright ever comes into existence to transfer. The doctrine does not create copyrights; it reassigns them. Owning the machine, on this theory, gets Thaler nothing because there is nothing to own.
What the Ruling Does Not Cover
The case answers one specific question: whether a work produced entirely by AI, with no claimed human creative involvement, can be registered. It says no. It does not decide whether a person who builds, trains, prompts, or directs an AI system can claim authorship of the output.
Thaler raised a version of that argument late in the appeal, contending he should be considered the author because he built and operated the Creativity Machine. The D.C. Circuit refused to consider it, finding he had waived the argument by never raising it before the Copyright Office. From the start, he had listed only the machine as the author.1United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter
The result is a clean but narrow ruling. Purely autonomous AI output is off the table. Human-directed use of AI is a different question that this case does not resolve.
What This Means for AI-Assisted Work
Most people using generative AI are not claiming the machine is the author. They are writing prompts, editing outputs, and arranging results into finished work. For those situations, the Copyright Office issued registration guidance in March 2023.
The rule is disclosure and separation. Applicants must disclose any AI-generated content that is more than trivial and describe what a human actually created. AI-generated elements should be excluded from the copyright claim. Human-authored portions, along with creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of elements, can still be protected.6Federal Register. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence
The Zarya of the Dawn registration shows how this plays out. Kristina Kashtanova registered a graphic novel that combined her own text with images she generated using Midjourney. The Copyright Office granted registration initially, then reviewed and narrowed it. She kept copyright in the text she wrote and in her selection and arrangement of the visual and written elements. The individual AI-generated images were removed from the registration because they were “not the product of human authorship.”7U.S. Copyright Office. Zarya of the Dawn Letter
The practical picture for anyone working with AI tools: using the tool does not destroy your copyright in the surrounding work, but the parts the AI produced on its own are not yours to claim. Your copyright covers what you wrote, what you drew, and how you creatively assembled the pieces. A raw AI-generated image, standing alone, has no copyright owner. Substantial human modification, original text, and creative arrangement remain protectable, and the Copyright Office says it will evaluate those claims on a case-by-case basis.