Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a part of the tools we use every day. AI can be found on our computers, our phones, our cars, and beyond. As AI systems grow more advanced, it becomes increasingly appealing to rely on them to generate content, ideas, and even finished works with little to no human input. But as AI takes on more of the creative process, a critical question emerges: what happens to the role of human authorship? When we begin to substitute our own creativity with AI-generated creativity, there can be important legal consequences. For example, for works created solely through the use of AI, the resulting work may not qualify for copyright protection due to insufficient human involvement.

Copyright law requires human authorship for a work to be copyrightable. But what happens when a work is entirely created by artificial intelligence and the author is listed as AI? One notable case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, addresses this question. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision affirmed that a work generated entirely by artificial intelligence, without human authorship, is not eligible for copyright protection. The case involves a visual artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was generated entirely by an artificial intelligence system created by a computer scientist named Stephen Thaler. In this case, Thaler explained that he did not provide any prompts to the system and did not make any subsequent edits or modifications to the final image. As such, his copyright application identified the AI system as the sole author and did not claim any human authorship.

The Court held that the requirement of human authorship does not bar protection for works created with the help of artificial intelligence; rather, it requires that the author be a human, not the technology itself. Further, the Court did not consider what degree of human involvement would be sufficient to support copyright protection for AI-assisted work, because Stephen Thaler expressly denied contributing any creative input. From this, we can learn that AI is a tool rather than an author, and therefore, on its own, AI cannot create a work that is eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act.

Notably, this ruling does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence in creative works; rather, it underscores that a work must include a meaningful degree of human authorship and creativity to qualify for copyright protection. Since the law does not yet define a clear threshold for what constitutes “enough” human input, the prudent approach for artists is to ensure substantial and well-documented human involvement in the creative process.

Key Takeaways For Using Artificial Intelligence:

  1. Human creativity matters; be sure to incorporate it! Copyright protection depends on clear human input in shaping AI-generated content, such as through conception, selection, arrangement, or editing, while merely clicking “generate” is unlikely to suffice.
  2. Document the human contributions. If AI is being used as part of a work, it is important to keep detailed records of prompts, revisions, curation choices, and creative edits because this documentation can be important evidence for establishing human authorship.
  3. Artificial Intelligence is a tool. To secure copyright protection, creators should ensure meaningful human input, maintain clear records of their creative contributions, and actively shape AI-generated outputs rather than relying on automation alone.

Thanks for reading!