直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

DC Circuit Holds That AI Systems Are Not “Authors” for Purposes of Copyright

March 27, 2025

Authored and Edited by Anna B. Chauvet; Taryn T. Willett

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities advance, courts and the U.S. Copyright Office have grappled with the issue of who, or what—if anyone—owns the copyrights in works generated by AI systems. Fundamental questions have focused on whether copyright requires human authorship and, if so, whether works created solely through the use of AI possess sufficient human authorship to merit copyright protection.

In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unequivocally answered this question. The DC Circuit held that human authorship is required for copyright protection in the United States, thus affirming the Copyright Office’s longstanding position that the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored by a human being. Applying this rule, the DC Circuit affirmed the denial of an application seeking to register a copyright claim in a work of visual art created solely by AI.

Read more on Thaler v. Perlmutter here.

 

Tags

AI + Copyright

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Copyright

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Anna B. Chauvet
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4075
Email

Related Insights

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Netflix Prevails in Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Tiger King

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

IP Updates

Tenth Circuit Sides with Netflix in Tiger King Copyright Challenge 

May 5, 2026

Conference

2nd AI & IP Forum

April 26, 2026

Munich

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard

April 22, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses Eligibility of Software Claims Where Technical Improvements Were Not Reflected in Claims

April 15, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP