The report explains the human-authorship requirement and the limits of protection for AI-generated material, while allowing protection for sufficient human creative contributions.[1]
[1] Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: CopyrightabilityGovernment Source
US Copyright Office · 1 Jan 2025
US law and current policy; not a global rule or blanket ban on AI-assisted works.
The court upheld refusal to register a work represented as autonomously computer-generated. Direct application of the human-authorship requirement.[2]
[2] Thaler v. Perlmutter — district court opinionGovernment Source
US District Court, District of Columbia
Primary court document hosted by Justia; specific registration record, not every AI-assisted case.
The appellate court affirmed that eligible authors under the Copyright Act must be human. Strengthens the legal basis for the narrowed claim.[3]
[3] Thaler v. Perlmutter — appellate opinionGovernment Source
US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit · 1 Jan 2025
Primary opinion hosted by FindLaw; same litigation as the district decision.
The Office kept copyright for the human-written text and arrangement of a comic but refused it for the images made with Midjourney. Shows where the line is drawn in a mixed work.[4]
[4] Zarya of the Dawn registration decision (letter of 21 February 2023)Government Source
US Copyright Office · 1 Jan 2023
An administrative decision on one work, not a court ruling.
UK law names an author for a "computer-generated" work with no human author. Shows the US position is not universal.[5]
[5] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988Government Source
UK legislation
UK law; rarely tested in court.