In a recent Federal Court of Appeals case, the court dealt with an opinion exploring the intersection between generative AI and copyright law. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tackled a fundamental question: “Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976?” The court affirmed the copyright office’s denial of registration where the application listed a generative AI named the “Creativity Machine” as the sole author of a piece of AI generated artwork. The case reaffirmed the long-held principle that to receive copyright protection and thus be eligible for registration, a work must be authored in the first instance by a human being.

Thus, despite the recent and accelerating advances in generative AI technology that has given rise to a booming industry, copyright registrations remain out of reach for purely AI generated works.

The moving party in the action was denied a copyright registration for an artwork after listing a generative AI as its sole author. The appellant applied to the United States Copyright Office to register his AI generated artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The work was wholly created using a generative AI tool that the author called the “Creativity Machine.” The application listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and the appellant himself as the work’s owner.

In denying the application, the copyright office relied on the “human-authorship requirement,” which requires work to be authored in the first instance by a human being to be eligible for copyright registration.

On appeal, the circuit court observed that “federal copyright protection extends only as far as Congress designates by statute.”  The court reiterated that “authors are at the center of the Copyright Act” and that “traditional tools of statutory interpretation show that ‘author’ refers only to human beings.”

Interestingly, the court, in support of its decision, among other things, indicated that (1) Its ownership provision is based on the author’s legal capacity to own property; and (2) the duration of copyright protection is tied to a human author’s lifespan (“the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.”)

The Court further explained that one of the underlying purposes of copyright protection is to ensure that “easily reproducible work is protected [and] individuals are incentivized to undertake the effort of creating original works.” To carry out that function, the copyright office has authority to establish regulations to implement the Copyright Act and the copyright office’s regulations require that any registered works are offered by a human.