An examination of the U.S. Copyright Office's firm stance against non-human authors, the 'DABUS' precedent, and the future of works created by machines.

Table of Contents

• The Bedrock Principle: Human Authorship
• The Landmark Denial: Thaler v. Perlmutter
• Why Prompts Alone Do Not Confer Copyright
• The Copyrightability of Hybrid Works
• Implications for Music: The Public Domain Flood
• References & Further Reading

Every piece of generative music, art, or text raises a fundamental question: **Who is the author?** In the United States, the answer is unwavering: **only human beings** can hold a copyright. This principle, which has been upheld by the U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts, defines the entire legal landscape for AI-assisted creation.

This article explores why purely AI-generated music is ineligible for copyright protection, the court cases that established this rule, and what level of human creative input is necessary to secure ownership of an AI-assisted work.

The Bedrock Principle: Human Authorship

The U.S. Copyright Office has consistently affirmed that **human authorship is a bedrock requirement** for a work to be eligible for protection under the Copyright Act. [1]

The Constitutional Basis

This principle is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to secure "to **Authors** and **Inventors** the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [4]

• The courts have interpreted the term "**Author**" to mean a creator who provides the original, creative input.
• The Copyright Act's structure references the author's **life and death** (defining the term of copyright), their **children** and **widow**, and their **nationality**, which makes no logical sense if the author were a non-human machine. [4]

The Landmark Denial: Thaler v. Perlmutter

The most important legal challenge to the human authorship requirement came from computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler, who sought to copyright an artwork created entirely by his AI system, **DABUS** ("Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience").

The Ruling

In a landmark 2025 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the denial of copyright, ruling that the Copyright Act requires all eligible work to be **authored in the first instance by a human being**. [4]

• **Thaler's Claim:** Thaler listed the Creativity Machine (DABUS) as the sole author and himself as merely the owner, arguing that his ownership of the machine entitled him to the IP.
• **Court's Position:** The court rejected this, explicitly stating that AI is a **tool** used by humans in the creative process, but the machine itself cannot be considered a legal person capable of holding copyright or property rights. [5]

Why Prompts Alone Do Not Confer Copyright

The Copyright Office has made clear that merely inputting a detailed **prompt** (e.g., "Create a jazzy hip-hop beat with a driving rhythm and minor keys") into an AI system is generally insufficient to claim copyright in the output. [3]

This finding is based on two key principles:

• **Idea vs. Expression:** Prompts are considered expressions of an **idea** (a "jazzy hip-hop beat"), and ideas are not copyrightable. The **expression** (the specific sequence of notes) is created by the machine, not controlled by the human.
• **Lack of Control:** The user typically lacks the **sufficient human control** over the expressive elements of the output. A single prompt can generate multiple, wildly different musical pieces, demonstrating that the human did not dictate the final, specific expression. [3]

The Copyrightability of Hybrid Works

The denial of copyright for purely AI works **does not** bar protection for works that involve **human-AI collaboration**. The key is to demonstrate **meaningful creative contribution** beyond simple prompting.

What Qualifies for Copyright Protection:

The U.S. Copyright Office Guidance permits registration for the **human-authored aspects** of a work, including: [1]

• **Creative Selection and Arrangement:** Taking multiple AI-generated musical phrases and creatively selecting, arranging, and sequencing them into a unique song structure.
• **Creative Modification:** Taking an AI-generated beat or instrumental and significantly modifying the melody, adding original human-recorded vocals, or editing the instrumentation.
• **Human-Authored Inputs:** Where a human-authored work (e.g., original lyrics or a hand-drawn sheet music sketch) is clearly perceptible in the final AI-generated output.

Implications for Music: The Public Domain Flood

The denial of copyright for pure AI music has vast implications for the music economy:

• **Creative Use:** Since purely AI-generated tracks are in the public domain, they can be freely copied, remixed, and used commercially by anyone without permission or payment.
• **Content Dilution:** This accelerates the "AI Slop" problem, potentially flooding the market with uncopyrightable, derivative content that lowers the overall value of copyrighted, human-authored music.
• **Shifting Business Models:** It reinforces the industry's pivot toward licensed ecosystems (as covered in the **AI vs. Artists** article), where artists are paid for their input (training data) and identity (voice licensing), rather than relying solely on the final composition's copyright.

Conclusion

The consensus in the U.S. legal system is clear: AI is a powerful tool, but it is not a legal author. While this denial protects human creators from losing authorship entirely to machines, it places the burden on artists to meticulously document their creative intervention in hybrid works. The future of copyright hinges on clearly defining and measuring the human spark that remains essential to securing intellectual property protection.

References & Further Reading

1. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing AI-Generated Material - U.S. Copyright Office.
2. Generative AI in Focus: Copyright Office's Latest Report (2025) - Wiley Rein.
3. Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials - Skadden.
4. Thaler v. Perlmutter - U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (March 18, 2025).
5. AI-Generated Works Copyright Denied by D.C. Court (Thaler Case Analysis) - McNees Law.