A Single Slice of Legal History: What the “Cheese” Copyright Means for AI and IP Law

In January 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office quietly made history. For the first time, it granted copyright protection to an artwork generated entirely with the help of artificial intelligence—A Single Piece of American Cheese. While the name may sound whimsical, the implications are anything but. This decision marks a turning point in how the legal system is adapting to the creative possibilities—and challenges—posed by generative AI. We checked in with Allison M. Hester, a Director and Vice Office Managing Partner in Fennemore Denver’s Business Litigation Practice.

Can You Summarize the Circumstances Behind the Cheese?

Sure. The image in question, was created by Kent Keirsey, CEO of the generative AI platform Invoke, and features a surreal digital composition of a woman with spaghetti- like hair, a third eye, and a slice of processed cheese integrated into her face. Using Invoke’s tools, Keirsey generated and edited the image through a method called “inpainting”—an iterative process in which specific parts of an AI-generated image are modified based on user prompts. Keirsey did not merely prompt an image into existence and download it. He also completed over 35 rounds of edits, carefully guiding the AI, selecting elements, re-rendering sections, and making creative decisions at every stage. He compiled this process into a time-lapse video and submitted it, along with a detailed statement of authorship, to the U.S. Copyright Office after that office had initially rejected the application on the grounds that the image lacked sufficient human authorship.

Upon review, the Office reversed its earlier decision. On January 30, 2025, it granted copyright protection to A Single Piece of American Cheese—not as an AI work, but as a human-authored visual artwork created with the aid of AI.

Why Does This Matter?

Let’s cut right to it. This decision is not about cheese. It’s about drawing the legal boundaries of authorship in a new era of machine-generated creativity. The Keirsey case establishes a foundational principle for intellectual property law in the age of AI: human creativity still matters. Specifically:

1. AI-Assisted ≠ AI-Authored

The Copyright Office’s reversal makes clear that while fully autonomous AI creations remain ineligible for copyright, works guided by humans can be protected—if the human’s input reflects creative choices about selection, coordination, and arrangement. This is consistent with existing copyright doctrine, which requires “a modicum of creativity” and human authorship. Merely pushing a button or using a prompt is

insufficient. However, if a creator shapes the final result through a series of intentional,

original decisions—as Keirsey did—the work crosses the threshold into copyrightable territory.

2. A Playbook for Creators and Lawyers

The Keirsey ruling offers a roadmap for artists and their legal advisors. When using AI to generate images, music, text, or other content, the following factors may influence copyright eligibility:

The number of iterative edits made by the human creator.

The degree of creative judgment exercised during these edits.

Documentation of the human’s role in shaping the output.

Evidence of originality and intentional arrangement of elements.

For IP attorneys, this case signals a need to help clients document their creative process when using AI tools, especially for commercial projects. It also opens the door for advising companies on how to structure workflows to maintain strong claims of authorship.

3. Precedent For the AI Era

The “cheese” decision could influence a range of pending lawsuits where questions of human vs. AI authorship are central. For example:

In Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, the issue is whether a legal AI platform infringed on Westlaw’s copyrighted content.

In The New York Times v. OpenAI, the question is whether AI can generate outputs that compete with or misappropriate the work of journalists.

In Authors Guild v. OpenAI, authors allege large-scale copyright infringement due to the use of their books to train language models.

In each case, the court will have to grapple with what counts as original expression, what counts as copying, and how much “human in the loop” is required to meet copyright thresholds.

What Are the Broader Implications of This Decision?

This decision reflects a broader shift in how society views creativity. AI is no longer a mere tool; it’s an active collaborator. But that collaboration only has legal standing if a human is making meaningful decisions. There are also regulatory implications. As policymakers weigh frameworks for AI governance, the Keirsey decision underscores the value of transparency, disclosure, and process documentation. Regulators may eventually require creators to disclose when and how AI was used in commercial works.

What Are the Limits of Protection?

It’s worth noting what this decision doesn’t do. It does not suggest that AI alone can be an author. It doesn’t grant copyright to the output of ChatGPT, DALL-E, or any other generative model unless a human shapes the final result. Nor does it settle how much human input is enough—a question that will likely be tested in future litigation. The Copyright Office also emphasized that its decision was based on the particular facts presented here. It’s not a blanket rule, but rather a cautious acknowledgment that authorship is evolving—and that the law must evolve with it.

What Does This Case Signal to Lawyers?

A Single Piece of American Cheese is the first major recognition that human-AI collaboration, when sufficiently creative, falls under the protection of U.S. copyright law. For lawyers, creators, and businesses alike, this decision is a signal to prepare.

The tools have changed, but the core legal question remains: who is the author? Thanks to this surreal slice of art history, we now have a clearer—and more nuanced— answer.

Allison M. Hester is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation and Intellectual Property groups, focusing her practice on appellate advocacy, intellectual property law, and civil litigation. Allison’s intellectual property practice focuses on trademark administration and litigation, protecting and prosecuting the intellectual property rights of clients before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and well as in civil litigation in the court system.