US appeals court rules that AI-generated artworks cannot be protected by copyright

On March 18, 2025, a US federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit seeking copyright protection for AI-generated artwork. The court ruled that 'artworks generated by AI without human input cannot be protected under US copyright law.'

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 19, 2024 Decided March 18, 2025 No. 23-5233
(PDF file)

The plaintiff in this case, computer scientist Steven Saylor, developed and used a proprietary AI system called DABUS to create a visual artwork called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” in 2018 and applied to the United States Copyright Office for copyright on the work.

However, in February 2022, the Copyright Office ruled that 'AI-generated images do not contain the elements of 'human copyright,' which is the necessary standard for copyright protection,' and rejected Saylor's application.

'There is no copyright to artworks created by AI' - US Copyright Office denies AI copyright - GIGAZINE

Thaler appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., which upheld the Copyright Office's decision, stating that 'human authorship is a fundamental requirement of copyright, based on centuries of established understanding.'

Furthermore, on March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that 'artistic works generated by AI without human input cannot be protected by U.S. copyright law.' Judge Patricia Millett of the court said, 'U.S. copyright law requires human authorship above all else. Many provisions of copyright law only make sense if the author is human. Therefore, copyright protection requires a human author.'

In response, Saylor argued that 'DABUS is an AI system developed based on its own intuition, and if this AI system independently generates works, it should be protected by copyright.' Saylor's lawyer, Ryan Abbott, said, 'We strongly disagree with the ruling,' hinting at further appeals. Meanwhile, the Copyright Office said, 'The court made the right decision.'

In addition, in 2019, Mr. Saylor also applied for patent applications for prototypes of 'shape-changing food containers' and 'emergency flashlights' invented by DABUS.

However, in April 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and a Virginia federal court ruled that 'under U.S. patent law, an inventor must be human,' and rejected Thaler's patent application for his invention.

'AI cannot be registered as an inventor when filing a patent application': US Patent and Trademark Office announces official opinion - GIGAZINE

Dissatisfied with this decision, Thaler filed lawsuits in the United States and Australia over whether or not to recognize AI as an inventor. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a lower court decision upholding the decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office and the federal court.

The US rules that AI cannot be recognized as an inventor, while Australia rules that it can be recognized - GIGAZINE

In April 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed Thaler's appeal of these lower court rulings, ruling that 'patents can only be issued to human inventors, and Thaler's AI system, DABUS, cannot be considered the legal inventor of the two inventions in question.'

US Supreme Court rules that AI cannot be recognized as an inventor in patent applications - GIGAZINE