Supreme Court Denies AI Copyright Challenge — Human Authorship Now Settled Law

On March 2, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, bringing a definitive end to the legal battle over whether artificial intelligence can be recognized as an author under U.S. copyright law.

The answer is now unequivocal: No. AI cannot be an author. Only humans can hold copyrights.

What Happened

Stephen Thaler, an AI researcher, sought to register a copyright for a visual artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which was created entirely by his AI system called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).

The Copyright Office refused registration. Thaler sued, and the case wound its way through the courts:

• 2022: U.S. Copyright Office denies registration
• 2023: District Court upholds denial (Judge Howell)
• 2025: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms, ruling the Copyright Act "requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being"
• 2026 (March 2): Supreme Court denies certiorari — case closed

Why This Matters

This ruling has massive implications for everyone working with AI:

For Creators Using AI Tools

If you generate an image with Midjourney, DALL-E, or Stable Diffusion using a simple prompt, that output has no copyright protection. Anyone can copy it, modify it, or use it commercially without your permission.

However, if you substantially modify, arrange, or combine AI outputs with your own creative work, the human-authored portions may still be copyrightable.

For Businesses

Any content your company generates purely through AI — marketing copy, social media images, product descriptions — is effectively in the public domain. Your competitors can legally copy it.

This means businesses need to either:

• Add substantial human creative input to AI-generated content
• Protect AI-generated content through other means (trade secrets, contracts, speed-to-market)

For AI Companies

AI companies cannot claim copyright over their models' outputs on behalf of users. This clarifies that AI-generated content exists in a legal gray zone where traditional IP protections may not apply.

The Legal Reasoning

The courts relied on several key principles:

1. Constitutional Foundation

The Copyright Clause grants Congress power to secure rights to "Authors" for their "Writings." Courts have consistently interpreted "Authors" to mean human beings.

2. Historical Precedent

The Naruto v. Slater case (2018) established that non-humans (in that case, a monkey) cannot hold copyrights. The same logic applies to AI systems.

3. Policy Considerations

The court noted that copyright exists to incentivize human creativity. AI systems do not need incentives — they create regardless of legal protection.

What Is Still Copyrightable

The ruling does NOT mean that all AI-related works are unprotectable:

• AI-assisted works: Where a human exercises substantial creative control, using AI as a tool
• Compilations: Human-selected and arranged collections of AI outputs
• Derivative works: Human modifications and adaptations of AI-generated material
• The AI software itself: The code that powers AI systems remains copyrightable by its human developers

Practical Implications

If You Want Copyright Protection:

1. Use AI as a tool, not as the sole creator
2. Document your creative decisions and human input
3. Substantially edit, arrange, or modify AI outputs
4. Combine AI elements with original human-created work

If You Want to Use AI Content Freely:

1. Purely AI-generated content is public domain
2. You can copy, modify, and commercialize it
3. But verify there is no substantial human authorship involved
4. Be cautious — the line between AI-generated and AI-assisted is not always clear

What Comes Next

With the authorship question settled, the legal focus now shifts to:

• AI training and fair use: Can AI companies use copyrighted works to train models?
• Output similarity: When does AI output infringe on training data copyrights?
• International divergence: Other countries may take different approaches

The Thaler case is closed, but the broader AI copyright story is just beginning.

---

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Last updated: April 2026