Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976? In a March 18, 2025 precedential opinion, a D.C. Circuit panel affirmed prior determinations from the D.C. District Court and the Copyright Office that an original artwork created solely by artificial intelligence (AI) is not eligible for copyright registration, because human authorship is required for copyright protection.

Dr. Stephen Thaler created a generative AI named DABUS (or Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), also referred to as the “Creativity Machine,” which made a picture that Thaler titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” In the copyright registration application to the U.S. Copyright Office, Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the artwork’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner.

Writing for the panel, D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett opined that "the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being," including those who make work for hire. The court noted the Copyright Act's language compels human authorship as it limits the duration of a copyright to the author’s lifespan or to a period that approximates how long a human might live. "All of these statutory provisions collectively identify an 'author' as a human being. Machines do not have property, traditional human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, mentes reae, or signatures," the court concluded.

In rejecting Thaler's copyright claim of entirely autonomous AI authorship, the court did not consider whether Thaler is entitled to authorship on the basis that he made and used the Creativity Machine, because Thaler waived such argument in the underlying proceedings. The court also declined to rule on whether or when an AI creation could give rise to copyright protection. However, citing the guidance from the Copyright Office, the court noted that whether a work made with AI is registrable depends on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how much it was used to create the final work.  In general, a string of recent rulings from the Copyright Office concerning “hybrid” AI-human works have allowed copyright registration as to the human-created portions of such works.

The D.C. Circuit’s statutory text-based analysis and holding stands in parallel with the counterpart U.S. patent doctrine that human inventorship is required for patent protection, provided in Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022; Cert. denied) and reflected in the USPTO’s Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions issued February 12, 2024. 

Underlying the judicial rulings to require the human authorship and inventorship for copyright and patent protection is the concept that only humans can “create” art or can conceive the invention – that there is something special and important about human creativity, which is what the intellectual property law aims to protect. This underpinning of human creativity in the authorship and inventorship requirements was addressed in detail in a White Paper published last summer by Mammen and a multidisciplinary group of scholars at the University of Oxford.  The White Paper explains that creativity includes three core elements: (a) an external component (expressed ideas or made artifacts that reflect novelty, value, and surprisingness), (b) a mental component (a person’s thought process – interplay of divergent (daydreaming) thinking, convergent (task-focused), and recognition of salience (relevance)), and (c) a social context (for example, what society considers new, valuable, and surprising, and thus “creative”).   IP doctrines require all three core elements. Generative AI does not presently exhibit the equivalent of the mental component that is key to human creativity. 

In fact, as the White Paper discusses, there is some evidence that Generative AI can negatively impact even human creativity. First, using AI to produce creative products involves working in a way that emphasizes speed and instant answers, as well as becoming the passive consumer of such answers, rather than self-reflection or toggling between convergent and divergent thinking, which is key to creativity. Second, humans interacting with AIs tend to lose confidence in their own creative skills, and start to restrict the range of their own creative repertoire in favor of creating "mash-ups" of what AI provides. 

In analyzing the causal impact of generative AI on the production of short stories where some writers obtained story ideas from a large language model (LLM), Doshi and colleagues reported that access to generative AI caused stories to be more creative, better written, and more enjoyable in less creative writers, while such AI help had no effect for highly creative writers. However, the stories produced after using an LLM for just a few minutes indicated significantly reduced diversity of ideas incorporated into the stories, leading to a greater homogeneity between the stories as compared to stories written by humans alone. Thus, generative AI augmented less creative individuals’ creativity and quality of work, but decreased collective novelty and diversity among writers, suggesting degradation of collective human creativity by use of generative AI.

To be sure, the questions raised by Dr. Thaler and DABUS are testing the boundaries and rationales for existing IP doctrines.  Dr. Thaler argued that judicial opinions from the Gilded Age could not settle the question of whether computer generated works are copyrightable today.  But as reflected in the White Paper and affirmed by the courts, it is not enough merely to suggest that the outputs of Generative AI warrant IP protection because they are “just as good as” human-created outputs that are entitled to protection. Moreover, in most instances of AI-created work or invention, a human factor appears to be present to some extent, either in creating the AI, desiring certain goals and outputs, commanding the AI to generate a goal-oriented output, evaluating and selecting the AI-generated output, modifying the AI-generated output, or owning the AI for the purpose of using the AI-generated output. As the capabilities of AI continue to evolve, the border between human creativity and AI capability may blur further, posing an evolving set of challenges at the frontier of IP law.