AI art continues pushing into creative fields, challenging long-standing definitions of creativity and authorship in U.S. copyright law. Stephen Thaler believes AI can create original content and seeks legal recognition for those creations. In 2019, Thaler submitted a work generated by his AI system to the U.S. Copyright Office, calling the piece “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The system that made it was named the Creativity Machine. Thaler did not claim personal authorship; instead, he credited the AI as the creator, raising important questions about AI art ownership and how the law should adapt to this new reality.
That application stirred debate. The Copyright Office rejected it. Their reason? They said copyright law requires a human author. Thaler did not stop there. He fought the decision through reconsideration requests. When those were denied, he filed a lawsuit. The legal process now spans several years. Recently, Thaler asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case. He claims the court misapplied the law. This case could shape the future of AI-generated art ownership. At stake is the question: Who owns art created by a machine?
Background of the Case
In 2019, Thaler made history by applying for copyright protection for an AI-generated work. The piece was not just assisted by AI. It was entirely produced by the Creativity Machine. Thaler insisted the AI independently created it. He said he had no hand in the process of creation. The system operated using algorithms he had written years earlier.
He tried registering the piece with the Copyright Office. Filled out the form, listing the Creativity Machine as the author. Also designated himself as the claimant through ownership of the system. His reasoning relied on the idea of “work for hire.” He argued that the AI, like an employee, created the work under his ownership. He claimed that should make him the legal copyright holder.
But the Copyright Office disagreed. They said copyright law only protects works with human authors. They cited longstanding legal principles. In two separate requests, Thaler tried to overturn their ruling. Each time, the Copyright Review Board upheld the original denial. They said Congress never intended to extend authorship rights to machines.
Thaler saw this as a failure of the law to keep up. He filed suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. He argued that the Copyright Office applied the law too narrowly. He claimed the law doesn’t define “author” strictly as a human. That case eventually reached the D.C. Circuit. Judges there sided with the Copyright Office. Now Thaler wants all active judges in the circuit to take another look.
Legal Arguments Presented
Thaler’s lawyers put forth a simple claim. They said the Copyright Act doesn’t explicitly define “author” as human. That silence, they argued, allows for broader interpretation. They noted how the law has adapted before. In past years, lawmakers expanded copyright to cover new forms of media. They argued the same flexibility should apply here.
Focused heavily on the structure of the law. They pointed out the lack of restrictive language. No line in the statute says authors must be people. That omission, they claim, leaves room for AI authorship. They also attacked the reasoning behind the Copyright Office’s denial. They said it was based more on tradition than legal text.
The team also argued from a policy perspective. They said the refusal to grant copyright to AI-created works could stifle innovation. Developers like Thaler might hesitate to invest in AI systems. Without copyright, there’s no protection for the value AI can produce. They warned that this decision might discourage future inventions.
They also pointed to international developments. Other countries, like the U.K. and Australia, have already considered granting rights to machine-created works. Thaler argued that the U.S. might fall behind. He said the law must evolve to recognize changing technology. Otherwise, creators might take their ideas elsewhere.
Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The judge said the Constitution’s copyright clause talks about “authors” and “inventors.” Historical use of those terms always referred to people. The court said Congress never intended to include machines. That reading, it claimed, fits with the purpose of copyright law. The goal is to reward and encourage human creativity. A machine cannot respond to rewards or punishment. It cannot benefit from copyright.
The court dismissed Thaler’s “work-for-hire” claim. It said that concept assumes a human worker. A machine cannot have employment relationships. Only humans qualify as employees or independent contractors. That makes it impossible to apply work-for-hire to AI.
The court concluded that Thaler’s arguments belong in the legislative branch. It said judges cannot rewrite the law. Only Congress can change the scope of copyright. The court encouraged lawmakers to explore the issue. But it declined to act beyond its authority. Thaler’s lawsuit ended there. But he did not give up.
Implications for AI and Copyright Law
This case sets boundaries for future AI innovation. It shows where the current law stands. Right now, AI-generated works get no protection unless a human significantly contributes. That could limit the use of fully autonomous AI in creative industries.
Developers may try to adjust how they use AI. They might add human editing to ensure protection. That creates a legal workaround. But it doesn’t solve the deeper issue. The legal system remains stuck in a human-centered framework. It assumes only people create art or expression, leaving the concept of AI Art Ownership in a gray area.
Thaler’s case could push lawmakers to act. Congress may need to clarify who owns machine-created content. The question touches every industry that uses AI. It matters in music, software, marketing, and design. Creators want to know if their tools give them legally protected work. The current answer is unclear.
International trade also complicates the issue. Other countries are exploring AI rights. If the U.S. lags behind, it might hurt its leadership in tech. Courts can’t solve this alone. They interpret law. Legislators must write new rules to match new technology.
Thaler’s Appeal to the Full D.C. Circuit
Thaler filed a petition for en banc review. That means he wants every judge in the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case. He believes the earlier ruling made a critical error, claiming it ignored the language of the law. He argues the court let tradition override legal analysis, especially in the context of AI Art Ownership.
In his petition, Thaler says AI is a tool—it functions like a camera or typewriter. Those tools can create art. He says the law should treat AI output the same way. When humans set up a machine to generate content, they own the result. That’s how the law handles other inventions.
He also says copyright should protect all original works. Whether made by human or machine, originality is the test. The current system protects works that barely meet creative standards. Thaler says AI-generated pieces often exceed that bar. Denying them protection harms innovation.
Thaler believes a broader group of judges might see the issue differently. He hopes they will correct what he sees as a misreading. He thinks the legal system must adapt. Otherwise, AI creators will work without legal security. That hurts long-term progress.
Potential Outcomes and Future Considerations
If the court grants Thaler’s request, it could overturn existing precedent. That would send shockwaves through the copyright world. It would recognize machines as authors. That opens the door to lawsuits, ownership disputes, and policy reforms.
If Thaler wins, creators may license or sell AI-generated works just like traditional content. Companies could register AI output with the Copyright Office. That gives legal protections for software-generated songs, books, or art. It creates a new class of intellectual property.
But if Thaler loses, it sets a clear limit. The law would only recognize human creators. Developers may respond by altering how AI works. They may add more human input just to meet legal thresholds. That undermines full automation and slows progress.
Either result brings pressure on lawmakers. Congress will face calls to rewrite copyright law. Stakeholders across industries may push for reform. Some may want to expand protection. Others may want to restrict it. A compromise will be difficult but necessary.
This case also influences courts abroad. U.S. rulings often shape international practice. Whatever happens next, this case ensures the question of AI authorship won’t disappear.
A Legal Crossroads for AI and Creativity
Stephen Thaler’s legal fight raises one major question. Should U.S. copyright law evolve to include works created by AI? His journey—from application to appeal—has sparked deep reflection across legal, tech, and creative fields. Courts have so far answered no. They claim copyright requires a human. But Thaler believes that view limits progress. He wants the law to reflect current technology. His appeal seeks to break legal tradition.
A win for Thaler could expand rights for AI developers. A loss could push Congress to act. Either way, the issue remains alive. Artists, developers, and lawmakers must now decide how to protect machine-made content. The next step lies with the courts—or perhaps the legislature.
Take Action with Stevens Law Group
Need help protecting your creations? Want expert advice on navigating copyright law in the digital age? Contact Stevens Law Group today. Their team understands emerging tech and intellectual property. Get the legal clarity you need—before it’s too late.
References:
JUSTIA U.S. Law – Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
GoodWin Law – DC Circuit Holds That AI Cannot Be an Author Under Copyright Law
Crowell – D.C. Circuit Rejects Copyrightability of Artwork Created Autonomously by AI
Leave a Reply