Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a transformative force across various industries, capable of producing inventions and creative works that rival human ingenuity. For example, the image titled "Portrait of Edmond de Belamy" was created by an artificial intelligence generative adversarial network (GAN) developed by the Paris-based art collective Obvious. The image was sold at auction for $432,500 in 2018. Further, the AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) has reportedly been used to generate novel inventions, such as a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating.
In view of the potential value of inventions and creative works developed using AI tools, there has been interest in seeking intellectual property (IP) protection for such inventions and creative works. Patents provide IP protection to “inventors” of useful inventions and copyrights provide IP protection to “authors” of creative works (such as paintings and books).
This raises a critical legal question - can AI be recognized as an inventor for patents or an author for copyrights under US law?
AI as Inventors for Patents
The current legal framework in the US does not recognize AI as an inventor for the purpose of patent protection. This was firmly established in the case of Thaler v. Vidal, No. 21-2347 (Fed. Cir.), where the Federal Circuit Court ruled that only natural persons can be inventors under the US Patent Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the term "individual" in the Patent Act, which is understood to mean a human being. Therefore, AI systems cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications. In Thaler v. Vidal, the AI system was listed as the only inventor and therefor left open the possibility that an invention developed with the use of an AI system could be patented if there was a human who also made a contribution that satisfied the requirements of inventiveness in accordance with established case law[1].
AI as Authors for Copyrights
Similarly, the US Copyright Office maintains that only human beings can be recognized as authors of copyrighted works. This position was upheld in the recent case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025), where the court ruled that AI-generated works cannot be granted copyright protection unless a human being is identified as the author. The Copyright Act of 1976 requires that all eligible works be authored by a human, reflecting the long-standing principle that copyright protection is intended for human creators. Similar to in Thayler v. Vidal, the AI system was the only listed author in Thayler v. Perlmutter and thus the holding does not preclude the use of AI tools in a copyrighted work if a human contributes to the extent necessary to be considered as an author.[2]
Summary
The current state of US law clearly delineates that AI cannot be recognized as inventors for patents or authors for copyrights. However, as AI technology continues to evolve, it is likely that legal frameworks will need to adapt to address the unique challenges and opportunities presented by AI-generated inventions and creative works. Despite the current legal limitations, AI continues to play a significant role in innovation and creativity. AI systems can be used to analyze vast datasets, identify patterns, and generate new ideas, making them invaluable tools for inventors and artists.
While AI cannot be recognized as an inventor or author, humans (whose contribution otherwise satisfies the requirements of being an author or an inventor) can utilize AI tools and obtain patents and copyrights for the resulting inventions and works. For now, human ingenuity remains at the forefront of legal recognition for IP protection and, at least in this respect, cannot be replaced by AI systems.
[1] The law on inventorship in the U.S. is somewhat complex and vague and is outside of the scope of this article.
[2] The legal concept of “Author” under U.S. Law is somewhat complex and vague and is not within the scope of this article.
