Legal Ruling: AI Cannot Be a Legal Author
A recent legal ruling has established that AI systems cannot be recognized as legal authors or inventors under current copyright law. The podcast AI Unraveled highlighted the decision, which affirms that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement" and AI must be categorized as a tool, not an autonomous creator. This sets a major precedent for intellectual property in the age of generative AI.
The legal precedent was set in the case of *Thaler v. Perlmutter*, where computer scientist Stephen Thaler sought to copyright an image titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." Thaler explicitly named his AI system, the "Creativity Machine," as the author. The U.S. Copyright Office, and subsequently the D.C. Circuit Court, rejected this, citing the Copyright Act of 1976 which implies an author must be human through references to an author's lifespan and heirs. This ruling extends to patents as well. In the parallel case *Thaler v. Vidal*, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision that an AI system cannot be listed as an "inventor." The court determined that the Patent Act requires an inventor to be a "natural person," reinforcing the legal distinction of AI as a tool, not a creator. The U.S. Copyright Office has issued specific guidance for creators using AI. Applicants must disclose the inclusion of more than a minimal amount of AI-generated content in their work. While the AI-generated portions themselves are not protected, human-authored contributions—such as the selection and arrangement of AI-generated materials or significant modifications to them—can be copyrighted. The line between a non-copyrightable AI creation and a copyrightable AI-assisted work is now being tested in court. In *Allen v. Perlmutter*, artist Jason Allen is suing the Copyright Office for refusing to register his artwork "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial." Allen argues that his use of over 624 detailed prompts and subsequent edits on the Midjourney-generated image constitutes sufficient human authorship. This human-centric approach to copyright is not universal. While the European Union also requires human authorship for copyright protection, the United Kingdom has a unique provision for "computer-generated works." In the UK, the author of such a work is considered to be the person "by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken," offering a potential, albeit untested, path for protecting AI-assisted creations. For developers, the key takeaway is the need to document significant human creative input. Using AI for brainstorming or ideation does not need to be disclosed, but if AI-generated assets are incorporated into a final product, only the human-created elements are protectable under U.S. law. In copyright applications, creators must explicitly disclaim the AI-generated parts.
