Court Affirms That AI-Generated Art Without Human Input Is Not Eligible for Copyright
A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that artwork produced solely by artificial intelligence, with no human contribution whatsoever, cannot be copyrighted, highlighting that even an apparently trivial human element is essential to confer genuine authorship.
This outcome stresses that ownership is restricted to humans rather than AI systems or animals such as Naruto the macaque or ChattyG, which may prompt an unanticipated alliance between animals and AI in any future conflicts.
In 2023, a federal district court judge in Washington endorsed this perspective, asserting that “human authorship” is a “bedrock requirement of copyright” rooted in “centuries of established understanding.” Thaler cautioned the D.C. Circuit that this interpretation could dampen investment and labor in a critically novel and evolving sector.
On Tuesday, writing for a unanimous panel of three judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett clarified that U.S. copyright law “requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”
Reuters