The Copyright Office has rejected an application seeking registration of the AI-generated artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” with DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) named as its author, holding that an AI system is not a natural or juristic person recognised in law and cannot be entered as an author under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The order dated August 31 was passed by the Registrar of Copyrights on an application filed by Dr. Stephen L. Thaler under Section 45 of the Copyright Act read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013. While the Copyright Office found that the work satisfied the limited threshold of originality under Section 13, it held that the application could not be registered because it continued to identify DABUS as the author and Thaler as the owner.
The Registrar held that, on the applicant’s own factual account, Thaler was the legally recognised person who caused the particular work to be created and was therefore capable of being identified as its statutory author. DABUS, being neither a natural nor juristic person recognised in law, could not be entered as author.
The Copyright Office further held that identifying DABUS as author while claiming Thaler as owner was legally inconsistent with Sections 2(d)(vi) and 17–19. The statutory framework requires a legally sustainable basis connecting the author, first owner and any subsequent transfer of copyright. Since DABUS could neither hold nor assign copyright, the application failed to establish such a chain of title.
Significantly, the Registrar noted that the applicant had been given an opportunity during the proceedings to correct the author entry but declined to amend it and continued to insist that DABUS was the author. The rejection, therefore, was not merely on account of incorrect particulars having been initially furnished. It followed because the applicant, despite notice, hearing and an express opportunity to amend, continued to maintain the legally untenable claim of AI authorship.
The Registrar held that the Copyright Office could not suo motu substitute Thaler as the author or reconstruct the application on a basis that the applicant had expressly declined to adopt. Doing so would amount to the Registrar making and allowing a materially different application on the applicant’s behalf.
The order also made clear that whether legal personhood or authorship should be extended to autonomous artificial intelligence is a legislative policy question reserved for Parliament and cannot be introduced through administrative reinterpretation of the existing copyright framework.
Accordingly, the application was rejected. The Registrar clarified that the rejection would not preclude Thaler from pursuing such remedy as may be available in law on the basis of particulars correctly identifying the author and the corresponding basis of ownership.
The Copyright Office also left open the possibility of a separately formulated request to identify DABUS merely as the technological system through which the work was generated, without attributing authorship, ownership or legal personality to it.