US Edition
US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material
The Supreme Court upheld that copyright law requires human authorship, leaving AI-generated art ineligible despite growing use of AI tools in creative industries.
- On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Stephen Thaler's appeal over copyright for the AI-created image 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' made by DABUS.
- Because lower courts found human authorship essential, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Thaler's 2022 application, with a federal judge calling it a 'bedrock requirement' in 2023 and the D.C. Circuit affirming in 2025.
- The Copyright Office has separately rejected artists' Midjourney registrations, while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected Thaler's patent applications and the Supreme Court previously refused to hear a related patent case.
- President Donald Trump's administration urged the Court not to review the appeal, arguing the Copyright Act's 'author' language refers to humans, affecting artists and creators seeking copyright registrations.
- Thaler's lawyers told the Supreme Court the case was of "paramount importance" given the rapid rise of generative AI and warned refusal could make relief too late, harming AI development during critical years.
38 Articles
38 Articles
The Epoch Times
The Constitution StudySupreme Court Declines Case About Copyrights for Material Created by AI
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on March 2 to take up a case dealing with whether art created by artificial intelligence (AI) may be copyrighted under U.S. law. The justices denied the petition in Thaler v. Perlmutter in an unsigned order. The court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented. The respondent, Shira Perlmutter, is the U.S. Register of Copyrights. The petitioner, Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, sought a…
Even if a work is 100% created by AI, AI cannot be granted copyright... The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that even if AI creates original works of art and content, it cannot be legally recognized as copyrighted. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd (local time) in a case filed by a computer engineer from Missouri.
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 44% of the sources are Center
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
