Thaler v. Perlmutter

Sep 19

Overview

Filed June 2, 2022 in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

Summary: Stephen Thaler developed an AI system that created a digital artwork. The Copyright Office refused to register a copyright in the work because it lacked any human input. Thaler sued Shira Perlmutter in her official capacity as the Director of the Copyright Office, asking the court to compel the Copyright Office to set aside its refusal to register.

Status: Perlmutter filed her answer to the complaint on September 26, 2022. Because there are no facts in dispute—the only issue is whether, legally, AI-generated works are copyrightable—Thaler filed an early summary judgment motion on January 10, 2023, asking the court to rule in its favor. The Copyright Office filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment on February 7, 2023.

On August 18, 2023, the court denied Thaler’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Copyright Office’s cross-motion. It held that AI-created works—without any human input—cannot be copyrighted. Thaler submitted a notice of appeal to the DC Circuit on October 11.

Bottom Line: Most copyright cases revolve around the specific facts, namely around whether the defendant copied the plaintiff’s work, e.g., Does this song sound like that song? When did the defendant first discover the plaintiff’s work? Etc. But in this case, there are no disputed facts—everyone agrees that the work was entirely created by an AI, and the only thing at issue is a legal, not a factual, question—one that courts never have answered before: are AI-generated works (created without any human input) copyrightable? Thus, the impacts of this case will be felt far beyond the specific facts at issue. It could introduce a sea-change in what is copyrightable in the first place. If Thaler wins, any AI-generated work could be copyrighted, which introduces another, perhaps bigger, question: who owns that copyright? These are questions that Congress should eventually answer. It is better suited to weighing the large policy consequences that this case implicates. That will likely be what ends up happening, as, given the existing caselaw on the human authorship requirement, Thaler’s chances at winning in court aren’t very good.