In a landmark ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the creative industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed that artwork generated solely by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law.

The Case: Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office

The ruling stems from a case involving Stephen Thaler, who applied for copyright protection in 2018 for a visual artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." Unlike many copyright applications involving AI, Thaler specifically claimed that his AI system "DABUS" independently created the work without human intervention, arguing that his "sentient" system should be recognised as the author.

The U.S. Copyright Office rejected Thaler's application in 2022, stating that creative works must have human authors to be copyrightable. A federal district court judge upheld this decision in 2023, describing human authorship as a "bedrock requirement of copyright" based on "centuries of settled understanding."

On March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed these decisions, with Judge Patricia Millett writing for a unanimous three-judge panel that U.S. copyright law "requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being." The court further explained, "Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration."

Distinguishing AI-Assisted from AI-Generated Works

It's important to note the distinction this case highlights between:

1. AI-generated works (created entirely by AI without human creative input)
2. AI-assisted works (where humans use AI as a tool in their creative process)

The ruling does not address scenarios where artists use AI systems as tools to create works, maintaining creative control and making aesthetic decisions. The Copyright Office has separately addressed cases involving artists who sought copyrights for images generated with assistance from AI systems like Midjourney, which present different considerations than Thaler's case.

Australia: An Implied Need for Human Creativity

Australia’s position on AI-generated art remains less clear. The Copyright Act 1968 does not directly address AI, but existing judicial precedent suggests a requirement for human authorship. In the influential case of IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14, the High Court underscored that copyright protection demands "independent intellectual effort"—a standard that implies human involvement. While this case did not specifically involve AI, its emphasis on human creativity suggests that purely AI-generated works may not qualify for copyright in Australia. To date, no Australian court has ruled directly on this issue, leaving creators in a state of legal ambiguity.