Not Quite Human: AI cannot legally be considered an author for copyright protection, says court

A landmark copyright ruling reaffirms that AI cannot legally be considered an author, dealing a significant blow to efforts to expand intellectual property protections to machine-generated works. This decision highlights the growing tension between rapidly evolving AI capabilities and legal frameworks designed for human creativity, and establishes an important precedent as generative AI continues to produce increasingly sophisticated creative content.

The big picture: A federal appeals court unanimously ruled that copyright law requires human authorship, rejecting computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to register an AI-created artwork.

• Judge Patricia Millett’s opinion stated that “human authorship is required for registration” because many Copyright Act provisions “make sense only if an author is a human being.”
• The ruling reinforces the Copyright Office‘s longstanding position that creative works must originate from human authors to receive legal protection.

Key details: Thaler had argued that copyright laws were outdated and should evolve to protect works created by his “Creativity Machine” AI system.

• He specifically claimed that “judicial opinions ‘from the Gilded Age'” couldn’t adequately address whether computer-generated works deserve copyright protection today.
• The three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was not persuaded by these arguments.

Behind the reasoning: Judge Millett outlined several practical reasons why machines cannot qualify as authors under current copyright law.

• The judge noted that machines lack human characteristics essential to copyright frameworks – they don’t have lives, spouses, intentions, or the ability to transfer rights to surviving family members.
• Copyright duration is typically tied to an author’s lifespan, a concept that doesn’t translate to non-human entities.

Reading between the lines: The ruling acknowledges the potential for future legal evolution if AI capabilities continue to advance.

• The judge made a notable reference to Star Trek‘s android character Data and his poetry, suggesting copyright laws might adapt if AI ever developed human-like intelligence.
• This signals that while current law clearly requires human authorship, courts recognize the possibility of revisiting these questions as technology progresses.

Where we go from here: Thaler and his legal team plan to appeal the ruling, maintaining that his Creativity Machine is “sentient.”

• The case represents one of several attempts by Thaler to secure intellectual property rights for AI systems across different jurisdictions.
• The outcome will likely influence how creative industries, technologists, and legal systems navigate the growing intersection of AI and intellectual property.