AI-generated work can't be copyrighted without a human author
Courts and the Copyright Office agree: copyright protects human creativity. Work an AI system produces on its own isn't registrable, but human contributions to AI-assisted work can be.
Reviewed by Laurence S. Bezinover · Published
What changed
In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the D.C. Circuit held on March 18, 2025 that the Copyright Act requires a human author, so an image listing an AI system as its sole author could not be registered. The Supreme Court declined to review the case on March 2, 2026.
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report adds that using AI as a tool does not defeat copyright, but prompts alone are not enough. Human expression that remains visible in the result, and original human selection, arrangement, or editing of AI material, can be protected.
Who it affects
Businesses and creators using generative AI for content, designs, marketing, or code, and companies buying or licensing that work.
Questions to raise with counsel
- How much human creative input goes into our AI-assisted work, and are we keeping records of it?
- When we register a work that includes AI-generated material, how do we disclose it and limit the claim to the human contribution?
- Which AI outputs might copyright not cover, and can contracts or trade secret practices protect them instead?
This briefing is general information about California law, not legal advice for your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.