Thaler v. Perlmutter: AI-Generated Content and the Human Authorship Requirement

Introduction

In a pivotal decision on August 18, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that works created solely by artificial intelligence (AI) are ineligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. The case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, underscores the fundamental requirement of human authorship in copyright law, a principle that has significant implications for businesses, developers, and creators leveraging AI to produce innovative works.

Case Background: The Creativity Machine and Copyright Denial

Stephen Thaler, the plaintiff, sought to register a visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated entirely by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. Thaler listed the machine as the work’s author and claimed ownership through a “work-for-hire” arrangement. The U.S. Copyright Office denied the application, stating that copyright law requires human creativity for protection.

In rejecting Thaler’s appeal, Judge Beryl A. Howell affirmed that copyright law exclusively protects works created by humans. The court emphasized that this principle is deeply embedded in the Copyright Act of 1976, which specifies that an “author” must be the originator of the creative work. By definition, this excludes non-human entities like AI systems.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

1. Human Authorship is Essential: The ruling reaffirmed that copyright law only applies to works that reflect human originality and intellectual effort.

2. AI as a Tool, Not an Author: AI-generated content can still be protected if it incorporates meaningful human involvement, such as editing or directing the AI’s output.

3. Limits of Ownership Claims: Attempts to claim copyright through "work-for-hire" agreements or ownership of the AI system, as argued by Thaler, are invalid without human authorship.

Broader Implications for AI-Generated Content

The decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter has far-reaching consequences for industries increasingly reliant on AI:

• Tech and Creative Industries: Businesses utilizing AI to produce visual art, written content, or music must ensure human involvement to claim copyright protection.

• Legal Uncertainty: The case highlights unresolved issues about the use of copyrighted materials to train AI systems and the potential for intellectual property disputes.

• Future Developments: As AI technology evolves, there will be growing pressure on legislators to clarify the scope of intellectual property protections for AI-assisted creations.

Best Practices for Businesses Leveraging AI

To mitigate legal risks and protect AI-assisted content, businesses should consider the following:

1. Document Human Contributions: Clearly record the creative decisions made by humans in the production process.

2. Enhance AI Outputs: Ensure that AI-generated content is significantly refined or edited by humans.

3. Secure Licenses for Training Data: Verify that the data used to train AI systems complies with copyright and licensing laws.

4. Define Ownership Terms: Establish clear agreements outlining ownership rights when using AI collaboratively.

Conclusion

The Thaler v. Perlmutter decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that human creativity is the foundation of copyright protection. As businesses and creators increasingly adopt AI technologies, understanding and navigating the boundaries of intellectual property law is essential. While AI systems are powerful tools, their outputs must include meaningful human involvement to qualify for copyright protection.

Contact MZLS to learn more about how our expertise in intellectual property law can help safeguard your AI-generated content and other creative assets. Contact us here.