A court decision about a work naming a machine as its sole author does not answer every copyright question involving an AI tool. The specific application and issue matter.
In Thaler v. Perlmutter, decided March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed refusal of a registration for artwork submitted with a machine identified as its sole author. The court held that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. Its opinion distinguishes that issue from questions about works made with human use of AI assistance.
What creators should check
- Keep a record of your own contributions: drafts, edits, selections and other creative decisions. Do not substitute a tool’s marketing claim for an account of what you actually created.
- Separate registration of your work from permission to use other people’s material. One question does not resolve the other.
- Read a decision’s date and the question it decides. Be cautious with headlines suggesting a single ruling settles all AI training, output or digital-replica disputes.
Useful resources
Read the D.C. Circuit’s Thaler opinion — provides the court’s dated reasoning and its discussion of the limits of the issue before it.
Copyright Office AI research and court links — collects separately dated guidance, reports and subsequent case documents.
This is an explainer of the March 2025 appellate opinion, not a claim about the final outcome of every later proceeding. If you need advice about a registration, bring the actual work and creation history—not just the name of the AI service.
Have a question about your situation? Request a consultation with Arrington & Phillips.
General information, not legal advice for a specific matter.
