Can A.I. claim copyright on a work it generates — and then transfer copyright to a human? That was the strange question in a case decided on March 18, 2025 when a federal appellate court decision addressed an entirely novel issue that lies at the intersection between copyright ownership and generative artificial intelligence.

The core issue in the case was not merely whether a human could claim copyright on generative A.I. works. In this case, the actual issue was whether A.I. itself could claim copyright — and then transfer copyright to its human programmer.

Thus, while many performing artists are concerned with seeking redress when a generative A.I. program abrogates their copyright ownership when it ingests their content without consent, this suit had an entirely different and somewhat bizarre slant.

The suit, Thaler vs. Perlmutter, involved a computer scientist, Dr. Stephen Thaler, who sought to extend copyright ownership of creative works produced by his A.I. program “The Creativity Machine.” Dr. Thaler wanted the copyright owner to be the A.I. program itself and then have the program transfer the copyright to him as a work for hire. (The “Perlmutter” in this case refers to Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.)

Thaler’s petition was first denied by the U.S. Copyright Office because copyright ownership under the law can only be premised on human-authorship.

This ruling was appealed and ultimately wound up in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Thaler’s contention that his program’s works were entitled to copyright protection could possibly the height of irony. It is quite likely that the Creativity Machine’s products were based upon ingested works of authors whose copyrights he violated. Seeking protection for such a work is the definition of chutzpah!

The court deftly dispatched the suit, ruling that only a living being could be a copyright owner. As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authorized by a human being. This is simply due to the fact that a copyright is a property right created by Congress. An entity that cannot own property thus cannot own a copyright. Machines cannot own property (yet).

Furthermore, since the duration of a copyright interest is measured in terms of an author’s lifespan, a machine cannot hold a copyright under the law’s framework. Ownership has no bearing on a machine that is not a living being.

In rendering its holding, the court recited the conclusion of a 1978 report issued by a Congressional Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Acts: “on the basis of its investigation and society’s experience with the computer, the Commission believes that there is no reasonable basis for considering that a computer in any way contributes authorship to a work produced through its use. The computer, like a camera or a typewriter, is an inert instrument, capable of functioning only when activated either directly or indirectly by humans. When so activated it is capable of doing only what it is directed to do in the way it is directed to perform.”

This case answers the question (for now) about whether A.I. itself can be granted copyright and can transfer copyright to a human. This was clearly an important test case. The humans won this round, but there are still many unanswered questions. Stay tuned!

Read other articles in Local 802’s A.I. series here: https://www.local802afm.org/ai-resource-page/