Who owns AI output?
Courts are still deciding whether works produced by artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection, using the DABUS case as a central test. (theprint.in) Recent coverage highlights that authorship rules remain unsettled in both the United States and India, and those rulings will shape who—if anyone—can claim ownership of AI‑generated material. (theprint.in)
A United States appeals court has ruled that a work made entirely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted because copyright law requires a human author. (media.cadc.uscourts.gov) The March 18, 2025 ruling came in Stephen Thaler’s case over “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” an image he said was created by his system, the Creativity Machine, with no human input. The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the United States Copyright Office’s refusal to register it. (media.cadc.uscourts.gov) The Copyright Office had already taken that position in guidance issued in March 2023 and repeated it in a January 29, 2025 report on generative artificial intelligence. The office said prompts alone do not automatically make a user the author, and protection depends on the human contribution to the final work. (copyright.gov) That leaves a line the law is still trying to draw: a person can claim copyright in the parts of a work they created or selected, but not in material a machine generated on its own. The Copyright Office said registration decisions turn on facts, including how much control a human had over the expressive result. (copyright.gov) The fight is now moving beyond the United States. On April 10, 2026, ThePrint reported that the Delhi High Court gave India’s Copyright Office eight weeks to decide Thaler’s application for the same image after officials had insisted on naming a “natural person” as author. (theprint.in) India’s copyright statute defines “author” differently for books, films, photographs and computer-generated works, and that wording has become central to the dispute. ThePrint reported that Thaler’s lawyers argue the law does not expressly bar protection for works made by artificial intelligence, while the registry has treated human authorship as required. (theprint.in) Thaler is still pressing the United States case as well. Supreme Court docket entries show he received extra time in July 2025, filed a petition for review on October 9, 2025, and the federal respondents waived a response later that month. (supremecourt.gov) The question underneath both cases is narrower than “can artificial intelligence make art.” Courts and copyright offices are deciding who, if anyone, counts as the legal author when software produces the expression and a human supplies the tool, the training, or the prompt. (copyright.gov) For now, the clearest rule is the American one: no human author, no copyright registration. India’s next ruling will test whether another major legal system draws the same line, or a different one. (media.cadc.uscourts.gov)
