Supreme Court Declines AI Copyright Case, Reinforcing Human Authorship Requirement

Summary

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal challenging whether AI-generated artwork can receive copyright protection, effectively upholding lower court rulings that require human authorship for copyright eligibility. The case was brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who has spent years attempting to secure copyright and patent protections for output created by his AI systems. In 2019, the Copyright Office rejected Thaler's application to copyright an AI-generated image titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," determining it lacked human authorship.

The decision follows a series of rulings against Thaler's claims. In 2023, US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright," a decision later affirmed by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC in 2025. Thaler had argued to the Supreme Court that the lower court ruling "created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively," but the nation's highest court declined to reconsider the matter.

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case aligns with recent guidance from the Copyright Office stating that purely AI-generated artwork based on text prompts cannot receive copyright protection. This decision has significant implications for the growing field of generative AI, establishing a clear precedent that autonomous AI creation, without substantial human creative input, remains outside the scope of US copyright law. Similar determinations have been made regarding AI systems and patent law, with courts ruling that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on patents, though humans can use AI tools in the invention process.

• The decision creates a clear legal precedent that autonomous AI creation falls outside US copyright protection, with similar rulings already established for AI and patent law