The Human Touch: Federal Circuit Weighs in on Copyright for AI-GeneratedWorks

As generative AI continues to transform the way businesses create content—from
marketing materials to software code—it also raises challenging questions about
intellectual property rights. Can a machine be an author? According to a recent ruling
from a D.C. federal court, the answer is no.

In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
addressed whether a creative work generated entirely by artificial intelligence can
qualify for copyright protection. In Thaler V. Perlmutter ¹ , Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer
scientist, applied for copyright protected of an artwork authored by a generative AI
model that he created. Dr. Thaler listed himself as the work’s owner. The U.S. Copyright
Office rejected the application on the grounds that the work lacked human authorship.
Both the district court and the appellate court affirmed that decision.

The courts held that under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, only human authorship
qualifies for protection. The law regards machines, including AI, as tools, not as creators
in their own right. As the Court noted, the Constitution and copyright statutes have long
been grounded in the notion of human creativity as the source of protected expression.
That said, not all AI-assisted works are excluded from copyright protection. The U.S.
Copyright Office has clarified that a work may still be eligible for copyright if it reflects
meaningful human involvement—such as a person directing, shaping, or refining what
the AI produces. ² However, the courts have not yet defined how much human input is
enough.

Creators and companies leveraging GenAI must stay informed and exercise caution.
Understanding how courts and regulatory bodies are approaching the rapidly
developing intersections of intellectual property law and technology is crucial, as
copyright owners who cannot prove a sufficient threshold of human involvement may be
at risk of losing protections on works developed with GenAI.

1 Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
2 Id., at 1049; Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, 16,192 (March 16, 2023).

*Disclaimer: The content provided in this blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Ivory Law Group or any of its attorneys. For legal advice, please consult with a qualified attorney directly.

Bio
Latest Posts

Ivory Law Group

We provide fractional general counsel support for growth-stage companies, offering flexible coverage across commercial transactions, contracting, governance, capital raising, M&A, employment matters, and legal operations. Our model delivers the legal support companies need, without the cost or commitment of a full-time hire.