US Supreme Court Declines To Hear Case On AI-Generated Art Copyright, Upholding Human-Authorship Requirement

In Brief

The US Supreme Court declined to review a major case on AI-generated art, leaving in place lower court rulings that only human authors can hold copyright.

Supreme Court of the United States declined to review a legal challenge that sought to clarify whether artwork produced solely by AI can qualify for copyright protection under US law, leaving in place earlier rulings that require a human author.

The dispute was brought by Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist based in Missouri, after the US Copyright Office refused to register a visual image generated by an autonomous artificial intelligence system known as DABUS

He submitted the work for registration in 2018, asserting that the system independently created the image, which depicts a stylized scene of railway tracks entering a portal framed by abstract vegetation and colored structures.

The Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022, concluding that US copyright law protects only works created by human authors

That position was later upheld by a federal district court in Washington, which described human authorship as a fundamental requirement of copyright protection

The decision was subsequently affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025.

Legal Precedent And Broader Implications For AI Creativity

The administration of Donald Trump advised the Supreme Court not to accept the appeal, arguing that the statutory framework of US copyright law consistently treats an “author” as a human creator rather than a machine.

The outcome leaves intact the Copyright Office’s broader approach to AI–generated content. In separate proceedings, the agency has also denied registration requests related to images produced with the assistance of the AI platform Midjourney, although those applications involved human users who claimed creative input in guiding the generation process.

Stephen Thaler’s legal team argued that the case carried substantial implications for the quickly expanding field of generative AI and warned that continued enforcement of a human-authorship standard could constrain innovation in creative industries during a critical development period.

The Supreme Court’s decision follows an earlier refusal to hear a separate challenge brought by him concerning patent rights for inventions generated by artificial intelligence

In that matter, the United States Patent and Trademark Office had rejected patent applications for AI-generated designs on the basis that US patent law similarly requires a human inventor. The court’s latest action reinforces the existing legal position that, under current federal law, both copyright and patent protections remain tied to human creative and inventive activity.

It is notable that AI systems were producing original creative works well before such tools became mainstream, yet legal frameworks now appear increasingly out of step with how widely AI-generated content is used across creative industries. As commercial dependence on generative technologies grows, well-funded studios and professional creators are likely to continue challenging existing rules on authorship and ownership, increasing pressure for regulatory change.