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

"Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright. 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 this requirement stands as fundamental to copyright law."

"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." The Supreme Court's decision follows several attempts by Thaler to copyright and patent the output from his AI systems, with consistent rulings that AI-generated works lack the human authorship necessary for protection."

"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, establishing international consistency on this issue."

The US Supreme Court declined to review a case brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler challenging copyright law's human authorship requirement. The Copyright Office rejected Thaler's 2019 request to copyright an AI-generated image called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, determining it lacked human authorship. A federal appeals court upheld this decision in 2025, affirming that human authorship is fundamental to copyright protection. Thaler argued the ruling created a chilling effect on creative AI use. The Copyright Office subsequently issued guidance stating that AI-generated artwork from text prompts receives no copyright protection. Similar rulings have applied to patents, with courts determining AI systems cannot be listed as inventors, though humans can use AI tools in development.

Read at The Verge