No copyright for AI-generated art, US judge rules

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

No copyright for AI-generated art, US judge rules

ai-image.jpg

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork created by one of his artificial intelligence programs

Artificial intelligence-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection, a US federal court ruled on Friday, August 18.

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler was appealing against the US Copyright Office’s refusal to register an image created by one of his inventions, an AI tool called the Creativity Machine.

In Friday’s judgment, the US District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the copyright registrar’s finding that human authorship is essential to a valid copyright claim.

The work in question was a visual image called 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise'. Thaler claimed the work had been created autonomously by the Creativity Machine with no human involvement.

Thaler and his legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, a law professor at the University of Surrey in the UK, have continuously argued that patent and copyright protection should be granted to AI-generated works and inventions.

So far, US courts and the USPTO have found that intellectual property rights should only be granted for works created by humans.

District Judge Beryl Howell took the same view in the latest case.

She also rejected Thaler’s arguments that the ownership of the registration for the AI-generated work, which would normally be granted to the author, should pass to him as the owner of the machine.

“These arguments concern to whom a valid copyright should have been registered, and in so doing put the cart before the horse.

“By denying registration, the [Copyright Office] concluded that no valid copyright had ever existed in a work generated absent human involvement, leaving nothing at all to register and thus no question as to whom that registration belonged,” Howell wrote.

Abbott confirmed on LinkedIn that Thaler’s team plans to appeal the judgment.

Thaler’s efforts to secure copyright registration are the latest evolution in a long-running campaign to reform IP laws around AI-generated works and inventions.

An appeal to name DABUS, one of Thaler’s other AI programs, as the inventor on two patent applications is pending at the UK Supreme Court. It heard the case in March.

The DABUS campaign has generated a series of high-profile appeals, including to the US Supreme Court, which rejected Thaler’s case.

So far, DABUS has only managed to be named as an inventor in South Africa, where the country’s IP office does not carry out substantive examination.

Appeals are currently pending at multiple other venues, including at Germany’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deals between five more law firms and President Trump and an antitrust lawsuit against Amgen were also among the top talking points this week
US counsel explain how they win new cleantech IP business and how they’re navigating the industry’s challenges
Leaders at the IP firms, which have joined forces with backing from a PE investor, share their vision of building the number one pan-European IP practice
Firms will steer clients towards other ways of getting quicker examinations, but fear the ramifications of the USPTO’s decision
Melissa Haapala added that returning to client advocacy and the chance to work on patent litigation were reasons for returning to private practice
Michelle Clark, who has a generalist litigation background, plans to focus on IP disputes at Alston & Bird
Philips and Vivo have entered into a licensing agreement, putting an end to a five-year-old telecom SEP dispute in India
Stefan Müller discusses managing deadlines, the importance of reflection, and why IP is more than just a 'nice to have'
The three founders of the IP firm’s new US offering say they plan to offer a unique proposition in a market fixated by the billable hour
The opinion provides useful guidance when it comes to how courts might consider contributory infringement, DMCA claims, and other issues in AI copyright cases
Gift this article