AI-generated works can’t be copyrighted in US as Supreme Court refuses to weigh in
The Supreme Court has declined to hear whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted, putting this legal argument to bed.
The stance on AI and art varies wildly, not even from demographic to demographic, but from person to person. There are thousands of artists who fervantly decry the use of AI in the artistic process, and there are those who herald it as a welcomed means to lowering the barrier to entry of creativity. This has thrown up questions around whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted, whether they should enjoy protections like brainchild creations from human minds. The US Supreme Court has shut down this argument in the US, Reuters reports, following a case that has been legally rejected three times already.
The story starts with, Steven Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, and his AI-generated visual work, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”. In 2018, Thaler applied for copyright registration for the artwork, which he generated using AI technology that he created himself. This application was rejected in 2022 by the US Copyright Office, since works must have a human creator in order for it to be eligible for copyright.
This is where the legal battle began. Thaler appealed the decision and, in 2023, US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howel determined that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright”, as The Verge notes.
Then, in 2025, this ruling was maintained by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Steven Thaler, still not accepting defeat, requested that the Supreme Court reviewed the ruling back in October 2025. He argued that the ruling “created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively.” I’m sure there are plenty of artists and creatives out there who have experienced that chilling effect from the other side of the fence already.
On Monday (2nd of March), the Supreme Court declined to intervene, and turned Steven Thaler’s case away. This came after Thaler’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that this case was of “paramount importance”, referencing the rapid rise and adoption of AI across countless industries.
The lawyers responded to the refusal, saying, “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.”
It’s important to recognise that this ruling doesn’t just apply to visual artwork, but to music, video, literary works, and more. The US courts have made it clear that human input is key for copyrighting works, and this applies to the media just mentioned.
Other places have deemed wholly AI-generated works as ineligible for copyright, but that leaves a blurred line around AI-assisted works. If something has been created with the help of AI, but not completely by AI, then it may be copyrighted. Complete Music Update points out that the US Copyright Office has concluded that “prompts alone” are not enough to class as human input and therefore make such works ineligible for copyright.
It feels understandable that human artists and creatives would prefer AI-generated work to not be eligible for copyright. The creative process comes from time spent learning, developing, considering, honing, practicing – things that amount to impressive effort that is a large part of why art is appreciated and lauded. AI-generative works represent none of this, so why should it be eligible for copyright? What actually needs to be protected here?
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision changes down the line is an unknown. But, for now, this case is effectively closed and the ruling stands on AI works not being copyrighted in the US. Sorry, Steven.