Reasons AI Art Is Not Eligible for Copyright

On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that works generated solely by AI without human involvement are not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. The case involved computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who developed an AI system known as the “Creativity Machine.” This AI autonomously produced a piece of visual art titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler sought to register the artwork with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as the author and himself as the owner. The Copyright Office denied the application, citing its policy that copyrightable works require human authorship. Thaler challenged this decision in federal court, but both the district court and the appellate court upheld the Copyright Office’s stance. The appellate court’s opinion emphasized that the Copyright Act of 1976 implies human authorship as a prerequisite for copyright eligibility. The court noted that many provisions of the Act, such as those concerning the author’s life span and the transfer of rights upon death, inherently apply to human creators. Consequently, the court concluded that non-human entities, including AI systems, cannot be recognized as authors under current copyright law. This ruling carries significant business implications. Under current law, content produced entirely by AI immediately enters the public domain, allowing unrestricted commercial use. However, if human creators provide meaningful input or demonstrable control over AI-generated output, copyright protection may still apply. The court offered minimal clarity on defining “meaningful input” or “control,” leaving substantial ambiguity. This issue is far from settled. Additional cases are pending, and congressional intervention remains possible. For now, meticulously documenting human contributions to AI-driven projects is essential. Clear documentation may safeguard your company’s intellectual property—and could transform your human-AI collaborations into strategic revenue opportunities. -s

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, ruling that AI systems cannot be considered "authors" under US copyright law. The case centered on Dr. Stephen Thaler's attempt to register a copyright for an image titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" - with his AI system "Creativity Machine" listed as the sole author. 🤖 Key takeaways from today's ruling: ⚖️ The Copyright Act's text and structure require human authorship, and machines lack human attributes mentioned in copyright law (lifespan, heirs, nationality, etc.). This doesn't prevent copyright protection for works where humans use AI tools - it just prohibits AI from being the sole author. ⚖️This decision follows rulings from both the 7th and 9th Circuits and upholds the Copyright Office's longstanding position requiring human authorship. The Seventh Circuit has held that authors “of copyrightable works must be human” and the Ninth Circuit has strongly implied the same when deciding that an author must be a “worldly entity” and cannot be an animal.   ⚖️The court noted that accommodating new technologies like AI falls to the political branches, not to the judiciary. We'll likely see legislative solutions emerge, especially as both Congress and the Copyright Office have been studying this. What are your thoughts on this significant copyright development? Should Congress create new protections for AI-generated works? 🔗Link to the decision in the comments!

🚨 Part 2 of the Copyright Office report on AI is out!! 🚨 Spoiler alert: Prompting alone ≠ copyrightable Today, the U.S. Copyright Office released the second of a three-part report around #ArtificialIntelligence. The first part focused on deepfakes, or digital replicas. This second part is focused on the big question surrounding the extent to which, if at all, #GenerativeAI output or works can be eligible for copyright protections. In a statement, Shira Perlmutter notes: “our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright. Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” Here are 5 key takeaways from this latest report: 1️⃣ Human Authorship is Essential – The report reaffirms that copyright protection in the U.S. requires human authorship. Works created entirely by AI, without meaningful human involvement, are not eligible for copyright protection. Courts and the Copyright Office have consistently upheld this principle. 2️⃣ Case-by-Case Analysis of AI-Assisted Works – While purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable, human-authored contributions within AI-assisted works may be protected. Each case must be analyzed individually to determine if the human contribution is sufficient to establish copyrightable authorship. 3️⃣ Prompts Alone Are Insufficient for Copyright – The report finds that inputting prompts into an AI system does not, by itself, establish authorship over the resulting output. Since AI models interpret and generate content in unpredictable ways, a user’s control over the output is often too indirect to qualify as authorship. 4️⃣ AI as an Assistive Tool Does Not Impact Copyrightability – The use of AI as a tool in the creative process does not disqualify a work from copyright protection. If a human makes expressive modifications to AI-generated content—such as selecting, arranging, or significantly altering it—those elements may be eligible for copyright. 5️⃣ No Need for Legislative Change – The Copyright Office concludes that existing copyright law is adequate to address AI-related copyrightability issues. It sees no immediate need for new legislation or sui generis protection for AI-generated works but will continue monitoring legal and technological developments. For those of us following in this space, the above highlights shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, and doesn’t deviate really at all from the guidance and public statements made by the USCO to date. I think a point of continuing confusion on the issue will surround what the USCO notes as “works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs.” But no doubt there is more to unpack on this point. #copyright #AI #GenAI #ownership #MachineLearning #USCO

🎆 I’m excited because the US Copyright Office has finally issued policy on AI and Copyright. Key points: 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗜𝘀 𝗘𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 AI-generated material without meaningful human involvement is not eligible for copyright protection. Copyright law is built on the idea that human creativity drives authorship. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿 Simple or general prompts guiding AI outputs typically don’t give the user copyright ownership of the result. Prompts may be protectable themselves if they are creative, but they rarely provide enough control over the output to qualify for authorship. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗲 When AI is used to support human creativity (e.g., brainstorming ideas, editing, or refining images), the human-created portions of the work can be protected by copyright. The distinction lies in whether the AI is merely assisting or fully generating the content. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 (𝗬𝗲𝘁) The Copyright Office concludes that existing laws are sufficient to address copyrightability questions and won’t require new legislation. However, it will continue monitoring AI advances. 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 While different countries are navigating AI and copyright in their own ways, many agree on the importance of defining and protecting human authorship amid AI proliferation. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁? The Copyright Office will update its registration guidelines and track technological progress to adapt copyright standards as needed. Read the report here: https://lnkd.in/gfDNgVs5 #AI #Copyright #WhoOwnsWhat #HumanInTheLoop

Can You Copyright AI-Generated Content? The U.S. Copyright Office Weighs In! The U.S. Copyright Office’s latest report (January 2025) tackles one of the biggest questions in the creative and AI space: Can AI-generated content be copyrighted? If you’re an artist, writer, musician, or business using AI tools, here’s what you need to know. Key Takeaways from the Report: 🔹 No Copyright for Fully AI-Generated Content • If AI creates a work without meaningful human input, it cannot be copyrighted. • This applies to AI-generated images, text, music, and video. 🔹 Human Creativity is Key • AI can be a tool in the creative process, but only human contributions are copyrightable. • Examples: • A human drawing enhanced by AI? The original human-made elements are protected. • AI-assisted songwriting? Only human-written lyrics or melodies are covered. 🔹 Prompts Alone Aren’t Enough • Entering a prompt into MidJourney, DALL·E, or ChatGPT doesn’t make you the author. • Why? Because AI interprets prompts in unpredictable ways. 🔹 Case-by-Case Decisions • The Copyright Office will review how much control a human had over the AI output before granting copyright. • Example: In the Randy Travis case, AI helped the artist (who has limited speech) record a song. Since the AI was a tool, the work was copyrighted. 📢 What This Means for You ✅ You CAN use AI in your creative process—just ensure you add original, meaningful contributions. 🚫 You CAN’T copyright purely AI-generated works—even if you spent hours refining prompts. 🤔 AI-assisted creativity is still evolving—new legal challenges and clarifications are expected. 🔍 My Take: The AI Copyright Debate Isn’t Over As an AI futurist and advocate for responsible AI in healthcare and business, I see this as a step toward balancing human creativity with AI assistance. But this report doesn’t address AI training data—a major issue for artists and copyright holders. Should AI companies compensate creators whose work is used to train models? The legal landscape is still evolving. 💡 What do you think? Should AI-generated content be eligible for copyright? Drop your thoughts in the comments! 👇 #AI #Copyright #Creativity #ArtificialIntelligence #DigitalArt #ContentCreation #AIinBusiness #TechLaw