Judge Upholds Ban on AI-Generated Art Copyright
A federal judge ruled that copyright protection requires a human creator, rejecting an artificial intelligence system's claim to authorship.
Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should AI-generated artwork be eligible for copyright protection?
Federal Judge Beryl A. Howell upheld the U.S. Copyright Office's refusal to grant copyright protection to an image created by an artificial intelligence system. Stephan Thaler, who sought the protection for work produced by his Creativity Machine, plans to appeal the ruling.
Why it matters
The decision reinforces that U.S. copyright law protects only works of human creation, a principle that bears directly on how AI-generated content is registered and owned. It also reflects a broader pattern in which courts and agencies have declined to recognize AI systems as authors or inventors.
The ruling turned on the requirement that copyrightable works have a human originator with the capacity for intellectual, creative, or artistic labor. The Creativity Machine is an artificial neural network-based system whose output was refused registration for lacking human authorship.
The players
Stephan Thaler
Thaler is a researcher who built the Creativity Machine and has pursued legal recognition of AI-generated works and inventions across multiple countries.
Beryl A. Howell
Howell is a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who issued the ruling upholding the Copyright Office's refusal.
U.S. Copyright Office
The U.S. Copyright Office is the federal agency that registers copyrights and refused to grant protection to the AI-generated image.
The details
Thaler sought copyright protection for an image produced by his AI system, and the Copyright Office refused the application because the work lacked human authorship. Thaler then sued the Copyright Office and Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, and Judge Howell sided with the agency.
Timeline
February: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler's DABUS patent case.
November 3, 2026: Judge Howell upheld the Copyright Office's refusal of AI artwork copyright.
The Tech Race
The copyright ruling follows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's 2019 denial of Thaler's patent application naming the DABUS AI system as an inventor. Together, these decisions show U.S. agencies and courts consistently requiring a human author or inventor, while South Africa awarded DABUS inventorship in August 2021.
Creators who use AI tools to make images or text may find that output without substantial human authorship cannot be registered for copyright. Users should document their own creative contributions to any AI-assisted work.
The takeaway
Creative work that relies heavily on AI generation may fall outside copyright protection under current U.S. law, so meaningful human authorship remains the deciding factor. Creators should keep records of their own creative decisions.
What happens next
Thaler has said he plans to appeal the ruling, and the appellate process will determine whether the decision stands.
Further reading
Explore more on Artificial Intelligence developments shaping copyright and inventorship law in the United States.
Source note: This article includes information reported by AI Business.
Live Poll
Should AI-generated artwork be eligible for copyright protection?
