US Supreme Court refuses to hear AI-generated art copyright case, upholding human authorship rule

Supreme Court won't hear AI-generated art copyright case

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether AI-generated art can obtain a copyright, as reported earlier by Reuters. The Monday decision comes after Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, appealed a court's decision to uphold a ruling that found AI-generated art can't be copyrighted. In 2019, the US Copyright Office rejected Thaler's request to copyright an image, called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, on behalf of an algorithm he created. The Copyright Office reviewed the decision in 2022 and determined that the image doesn't include "human authorship," disqualifying it from copyright protection. After Thaler appealed the decision, US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." That ruling was later upheld in 2025 by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. As reported by Reuters, Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it "created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively." Last year, the Copyright Office issued new guidance that says AI-generated artwork based on text prompts isn't protected by copyright. The Supreme Court's decision follows several attempts by Thaler to copyright and patent the output from his AI systems. The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can't patent inventions because they aren't human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can't be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them. The UK Supreme Court made a similar determination in a case brought forward by Thaler.

US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material

WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up the issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system. Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection because it did not have a human creator. Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for ⁠a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," visual art he said his AI technology "DABUS" created. The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and purple plant imagery. The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to receive a copyright. U.S. President Donald Trump's administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear Thaler's appeal. The Copyright Office has separately rejected bids by artists for copyrights on images generated by the AI system Midjourney. Those artists argued that they were entitled to copyrights for images they created with AI assistance - unlike Thaler, who said his system created "A Recent Entrance to ⁠Paradise" independently. A federal judge in Washington upheld the office's decision in Thaler's case in 2023, writing that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement of copyright." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2025. Thaler's lawyers told the Supreme Court in a filing that his case was of "paramount importance" considering the rapid rise of generative AI. With a refusal by the ⁠court to hear the appeal, Thaler's lawyers said, "even if it later overturns the Copyright Office's test in another case, it will be too late. The Copyright Office will have irreversibly and negatively impacted AI development and use in the creative industry during ⁠critically important years." "Although the Copyright Act does not define the term 'author,' multiple provisions of the act make clear that the term refers to a human rather than a machine," the administration said. The Supreme Court previously rejected Thaler's request, opens new tab ⁠to hear his argument in a separate case involving prototypes for a beverage holder and a light beacon concerning whether AI-generated inventions should be eligible for U.S. patent protection. His patent applications were rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on similar grounds. Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Blake Brittain Thomson Reuters Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, for Reuters Legal. He has previously written for Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters Practical Law and practiced as an attorney.

The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your AI-generated art

As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand. The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him. With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even ⁠if it later overturns the Copyright Office's test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the creative industry during "critically important years." It's worth noting that Thaler also filed applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office for AI-generated inventions, which were rejected for similar reasons.

US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material

The US Supreme Court has refused to consider a case about copyright for art created by artificial intelligence. A computer scientist sought copyright for AI-generated visual art, but lower courts ruled it ineligible due to lack of human authorship. This decision impacts the development of AI in the creative industry. The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up the issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system. Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a US Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual ⁠art ⁠at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection because it did not have a human creator. Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," visual art he said his AI technology "DABUS" created. The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and purple plant imagery. The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to ⁠receive a copyright. US President Donald Trump's administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear Thaler's appeal. The Copyright Office has separately rejected bids by artists for copyrights on images generated ⁠by the AI system Midjourney. Those artists argued that they were entitled to copyrights for images they created with AI assistance - unlike Thaler, who said his system created "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" independently. A federal judge in Washington upheld the office's decision in Thaler's case in 2023, writing that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement of copyright." The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2025. Thaler's lawyers told the Supreme Court in a filing that his case was of "paramount importance" considering the rapid rise of generative AI. With a refusal by the court to hear the appeal, Thaler's lawyers said, "even if it later overturns the Copyright Office's test in another case, it will be too late. The ⁠Copyright Office will have irreversibly and negatively impacted AI development and use in the creative industry during critically important years." "Although the Copyright Act does not define the term 'author,' multiple provisions of the act make clear that the term refers to a human rather than a machine," the administration said. The Supreme Court previously rejected Thaler's request to hear his argument in a separate case involving prototypes for a beverage holder and a light beacon concerning whether AI-generated inventions should be eligible for U.S. patent protection. His patent applications were rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on similar grounds.