Assertion Supported AI assessment confidence: 95% certainty 4/5 debate potential 2/5

Cairn-Brown: Works lacking human creative input are not copyrightable

Toni Cairn-Brown · AI, copyright and collective knowledge · Apr 2, 2023 · at 10:59

Toni Cairn-Brown discusses the foundational legal standards governing copyright eligibility during a conversation with Benedict Evans on AI-generated art.

0:00 / 0:05exact quote · 5.6s

720p mp4 · rendered on demand · StarZero watermark

“Without the human creative input, that work isn't entitled to copyright protection.”

quote is from the automated transcript, cleaned for reading: filler sounds and stutters are removed, nothing is rephrased. names can be misheard (the analysis reads context, assessments check outside sources). how →

The claim, plainly

Creative work without human creative input is not entitled to copyright protection under copyright law.

a quote alone can be ambiguous, so this restates it with the references and context of the conversation around it resolved. AI-written; the tape below the player is the source.

Assessment

Under established U.S. copyright doctrine, human authorship is a mandatory prerequisite for copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office Compendium (Section 313.2) explicitly codifies the human authorship requirement, excluding works produced by machines or mechanical processes without human creative intervention. Furthermore, the Copyright Office's March 16, 2023 formal policy guidance (88 FR 16190) confirmed that material generated autonomously without human creative input is ineligible for copyright protection, a stance consistent with established case law (e.g., Naruto v. Slater in 2018) and affirmed in subsequent judicial rulings including Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023; D.C. Cir. 2025).

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Third Edition, Sec. 313.2) mandates the Human Authorship Requirement and excludes works produced without human creative input.
U.S. Copyright Office Statement of Policy published March 16, 2023 (88 FR 16190) established that works generated autonomously by AI systems lacking human creative input are not copyrightable.
Judicial precedent, including Naruto v. Slater (9th Cir. 2018) and Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023, aff'd D.C. Cir. 2025), affirmed that copyright law requires human authorship.

Checked against

[1] cll.com [2] loeb.com [3] justia.com [4] copyright.gov [5] federalregister.gov [6] ropesgray.com [7] dww.com [8] skadden.com

US Copyright Office human authorship requirement guidance March 2023 Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices human authorship Naruto v Slater human authorship copyright Thaler v Perlmutter human authorship copyright August 2023 2023

assessed as of 2026-09-02

This assessment is an AI reading of a public statement, made against the cited references with the confidence shown. It can be wrong. The quote, the tape and the references are all on this page; if something is off, use report an error below. full disclaimer →

Mentioned

⚑ Spot an error? Report it

More from Toni Cairn-Brown

Insight

Cairn-Brown: Prompt engineering creativity determines generative AI output quality

“We're all being given the same tools, but you're, that creativity behind the prompt engineering is what's going to make the absolute difference here, which is fascinating.”

Cairn-Brown: Works lacking human creative input are not copyrightable

More from Toni Cairn-Brown

Turn any episode into a week of clips.