AI-generated works of art– beyond the limits of copyright law

Technological progress related to generative artificial intelligence (AI) presents unprecedented challenges to copyright. A recent ruling by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington has provided a key answer to the question troubling the creative industries: can a work of art generated exclusively by AI, without human contribution, be copyrighted?  

Thaler’s Case – an important ruling denying protection to AI works of art

On 18 March 2025, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington unequivocally confirmed that a work of art created exclusively by AI, without creative human input, cannot be afforded copyright protection under U.S. laws. This ruling is consistent with judicial decisions around the world refusing to grant copyright to works that lack an element of human creativity. 

The case concerned Stephen Thaler, who in 2018 applied for copyright protection for the painting entitled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Importantly, Thaler openly admitted that this work of art had been created entirely by his AI system called DABUS, without any human creative input. In his application, Thaler named AI as the sole author of the work and described himself as the right owner based on the “work-for-hire” principle. 

The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022, arguing that for a work to be copyrightable, its author had to be human. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court in Washington in 2023 and then upheld by the Court of Appeal, which stated that numerous provisions of the Copyright Act only made sense if the author was a human being. 

The essence of human authorship requirement

The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that copyright protects the expression of ideas by humans, and not the ideas themselves or works generated autonomously by machines. In the grounds for the decision, it was pointed out that for a work to be considered original, it must reflect the author’s personality, manifested in his or her free and creative choices. When the performance of a work is conditioned solely by technical considerations, rules, or constraints without room for creative freedom, there is no originality required to regard the work as copyrightable. 

It is also noteworthy that binding laws and courts have consistently affirmed that copyright law has been adopted to encourage people’s creativity and innovation by granting them exclusive rights to their works. Machines, including AI systems, do not need such incentives as they operate using programmed algorithms and training data. 

The use of AI tools to aid human creativity does not exclude copyright protection for the resulting work, provided that sufficient human control over the expressive elements is retained. 

The situation in Europe is not much different from that in the United States

The ruling by the American Court of Appeal regarding the human authorship requirement can largely be applied in the European context as well, which indicates a similar approach to the requirement of humans as authors also in Europe. 

The originality criterion, which has evolved with successive judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), additionally requires that the work reflects the “personality” of the author and results from his or her “free and creative choices.” 

It means that the EU legal system also allows for works to be created with the use of AI and other technologies, but offers legal protection only to those aspects in which the human author has managed to express the originality required. As interpreted by the CJEU, choices forced by technological factors, rules or restrictions are not eligible for protection, at least in the light of copyright law. 

Practical consequences for creators and entrepreneurs

This ruling has implications for all individuals and companies using AI tools in their creative processes. These implications are particularly important in the context of commercial use of AI creations, and they include, among other things: 

• AI works belong to the public domain, which means that they can be used by anyone, also for commercial purposes, without the need to obtain a license or pay fees. This calls into question the viability of using AI tools for work commissioned by clients, as it becomes impossible to ensure exclusivity for a product created solely by artificial intelligence; 

• Competition-related challenges for traditional creators: AI-generated products are often available for free or at a much lower price than works created by traditional methods, which puts creators using conventional techniques in a difficult competitive position. A flood of cheap or free content can significantly affect the market value of human-authored works, forcing artists and creative agencies to look for new ways to stand out in the market; 

• Need to ensure substantial human input: for a work to be copyrightable, a significant and creative human participation in the work creation process is required. Cooperation with AI is accepted by law, but complete autonomy of artificial intelligence precludes legal protection. Therefore, it is worth documenting creative processes and demonstrating what human contribution to the creation of a specific work consisted of; 

• Unprotected work: the ruling clearly states that neither users of generative artificial intelligence tools nor creators of AI algorithms can claim copyrights to works fully generated by artificial intelligence. 

The ruling by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Thaler’s case is a crucial contribution to the global debate on the relationship between artificial intelligence and copyright. It affirms the fundamental principle that copyright protection can only be afforded to works expressing human creativity.  

For lawyers, artists, technology companies, and policymakers, the intersection of AI and copyright remains one of the most dynamic and significant subjects of contemporary debate. 

In the face of the rapidly changing technological and legal landscape, it is crucial to keep abreast of the latest rulings and regulations. Although artificial intelligence offers tremendous opportunities to aid creative processes, from the perspective of copyright law human creativity still remains irreplaceable.