Thaler v. Perlmutter
AI cannot be author. Supreme Court denied cert March 2026.
Stephen Thaler vs. Copyright Office
U.S. Supreme Court (cert denied), D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court for D.C.
AI system DABUS should be recognized as author of visual artwork under Copyright Act
N/A (registration dispute, not damages)
Thaler v. Perlmutter — The Case That Settled AI Authorship
Case Summary
Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright for "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," a visual artwork created entirely by his AI system DABUS. The U.S. Copyright Office refused, and Thaler sued. After losing at every level, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in March 2026, making human authorship a settled legal requirement.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Thaler files copyright application listing DABUS as author |
| 2019 | Copyright Office refuses registration |
| 2022 | Thaler files lawsuit against Copyright Office |
| Aug 2023 | District Court rules against Thaler (Judge Howell) |
| Mar 2025 | D.C. Circuit affirms: Copyright Act requires human authorship |
| Mar 2, 2026 | Supreme Court denies certiorari — case closed |
Key Legal Issues
Can AI Be an "Author"?
The central question: Does the Copyright Act's use of "author" encompass non-human entities like AI systems?
Court's Answer: No.
The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act "requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being." The court relied on:
- Constitutional text (Copyright Clause refers to "Authors")
- Historical precedent (Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, 1884)
- Naruto v. Slater (non-humans cannot hold copyrights)
- Congressional intent
Thaler's Arguments (Rejected)
1. DABUS autonomously created the work without human intervention
2. Copyright should incentivize development of creative AI
3. The "person who made arrangements" (UK approach) should apply
4. Denying AI authorship creates a gap in IP protection
Court's Reasoning
- Copyright exists to incentivize human creativity
- AI does not need incentives — it creates regardless
- Extending authorship to AI would fundamentally alter copyright's purpose
- Congress, not courts, should make such a significant policy change
Impact & Significance
What This Means
- AI cannot be an author under U.S. copyright law (settled at highest level)
- Purely AI-generated works enter the public domain
- AI-assisted works may still be copyrightable if human exercises sufficient creative control
- The "tool" argument remains viable: AI as tool used by human author
What This Does NOT Mean
- It does NOT mean all AI-related works are unprotectable
- It does NOT address AI training on copyrighted data (separate issue)
- It does NOT prevent copyright for human-directed AI-assisted works
- It does NOT apply to the AI software itself (code is copyrightable)
Related Cases & Resources
- Copyright Office guidance on AI-assisted works (Jan 2025)
- "A Single Piece of American Cheese" — first AI composite work registered
- Allen v. Copyright Office (Midjourney artwork, pending)
Current Status
CLOSED — Supreme Court denied certiorari March 2, 2026. No further appeals possible. Human authorship requirement is now settled law in the United States.