On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a highly anticipated ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter. The court affirmed that under the Copyright Act, only a human can be recognized as the “author” of a work, thereby denying copyright protection to AI-generated works without human involvement.
The ruling did not address broader questions about AI-assisted works, leaving those issues for future determination.
Dr. Stephen Thaler, an AI researcher, filed a copyright application in 2019 for an image titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming ownership while listing his AI system as the work’s sole author. He initially argued that, as the machine’s owner, he was entitled to copyright, later asserting a “work-for-hire” claim.
The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, citing the necessity of human authorship. Thaler appealed, first to the District Court, which upheld the Copyright Office’s decision, and then to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate court upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the Copyright Act presupposes a human author. While the Act does not explicitly define “author,” multiple provisions—including those concerning intent, legal capacity, and lifespan—strongly imply that an author must be a natural person. The court further cited longstanding Copyright Office policy and previous rulings, such as the Naruto v. Slater “monkey selfie” case, which denied copyright protection to works created by non-human entities.
Additionally, the court dismissed Thaler’s “work-for-hire” argument, noting that an AI system cannot enter into contractual agreements or legally assign rights.
While this is the first case to directly address AI-generated works under U.S. copyright law, its outcome is unsurprising given prior case law. The decision leaves unresolved the issue of AI-assisted works, where humans contribute alongside AI. Notably, the Copyright Office has already rejected applications for works with AI-generated elements, even where human involvement was present.
The ruling applies specifically to visual works, but the principle extends to other creative domains, including literature, music, and software. Legal uncertainties remain regarding the extent of permissible AI use before a human’s contribution is deemed insufficient for copyright protection.
Israel has yet to issue a similar ruling, partly due to the absence of a formal copyright registration system. However, Israeli copyright law also implies a requirement for human authorship. A parallel issue arose when Dr. Thaler sought to register an AI-generated invention under Israeli patent law, only to be rejected on the basis that an inventor must be human. That case is currently under appeal.
This ruling raises significant questions for industries relying on AI for content creation. Advertising agencies, software developers, and creative professionals using AI-generated materials should assess the legal risks of relying on copyright protection. If AI-generated works are deemed unprotected, they may be freely copied without legal recourse.
To mitigate these risks, companies should:
***
Ran Vogel is a partner in the intellectual property group at S. Horowitz & Co. and advises on copyright, AI, and other intellectual property matters.
