Kayla Ganir, Benjamin Greenberg, JD Supra ; Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes
"By denying certiorari in the Thaler Case, the Supreme Court left intact several key principles flowing from the D.C. Circuit’s application of the Copyright Act’s human authorship requirement:
- A work generated autonomously by an AI system, without meaningful human contribution, lacks the human authorship necessary to qualify for copyright protection.
- The human authorship requirement does not impose a blanket prohibition against works created with the assistance of AI—rather, it requires that the author of that work be a human being and not the machine itself.
- Whether a work created with the help of AI is registerable depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the work’s creation, including how the AI tool operates and at what stage of the creative process it is used, and the overall extent of human creativity involved.
- The manner in which an applicant describes the role of AI in a copyright application will influence how the Copyright Office will assess the work under the human authorship requirement.
These principles serve as an important reminder that artists and creators should carefully consider the extent to which they rely on AI in their creative processes if they intend to seek copyright protection for their work. The Thaler Case underscores that while AI may offer innovative creative tools, protection under the Copyright Act remains grounded in human creativity, input, and judgment."
