Copyright Law's Human-Authorship Requirement May Protect Creative Jobs More Than AI Training Lawsuits

Thaler v. Perlmutter (DC Circuit 2024): AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted

The DC Circuit held that copyright requires a human 'author,' meaning works generated autonomously by AI systems are not eligible for copyright protection. The ruling shifts the legal question from whether AI companies can train on copyrighted data to how much AI involvement in a creative work strips it of copyright protection — a threshold courts have not yet defined.

US Supreme Court declined to review Thaler ruling in March 2026

By declining review, the Supreme Court left the DC Circuit ruling in place. The unresolved downstream question — how much AI content in a work voids copyright protection — has significant economic consequences and remains open for future litigation.

The Atlantic argues copyrightability threshold outweighs training-data lawsuits for creative labor

More than 90 lawsuits allege AI companies used copyrighted works without permission to train models. The Atlantic contends these cases, while high-profile, are secondary: the copyrightability question directly governs whether AI-generated content can be monetized at all, making it the more structurally important legal battleground for creative workers' livelihoods.

Entertainment and media companies depend on copyright exclusivity to monetize IP

Studios license films for streaming and merchandising, labels license recordings, publishers license rights across formats and adaptations. Without copyright protection, anyone could freely copy or adapt content — destroying the exclusivity that drives revenue. This creates a durable financial incentive to keep human creators involved in production.

Netflix bans AI-generated main characters; Hachette pulled 'Shy Girl' over AI allegations

Netflix production guidelines prohibit using AI to 'generate main characters, key visual elements, or fictional settings that are central to the story without written approval.' Hachette recently pulled the book 'Shy Girl' after allegations that portions were AI-written. The article frames these as business decisions to preserve copyright, not acts of solidarity with human creators.

Stock photography identified as likely AI-displaced regardless of legal outcomes

The analysis notes that some creative sectors face displacement regardless of copyright law — stock photography is the clearest example, as companies can generate adequate images for websites or marketing without paying a photographer or licensing from Getty. The financial logic protecting human creators is weaker where IP exclusivity is less central.

The Atlantic is a party to a copyright lawsuit against Cohere

The Atlantic discloses in the article that it is involved in one of the 90+ lawsuits — specifically against the AI firm Cohere. Readers should note this potential source bias: the publication has a direct financial interest in expansive copyright protections for human-authored works.