TL;DR

The US Supreme Court has declined to review a case challenging whether AI-generated art can receive copyright protection. The decision leaves intact a federal ruling that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.” The case, brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, has been working through US courts since 2019.

The case began in 2019 when the US Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s application to copyright an image called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, created by an algorithm he developed. On review in 2022, the Copyright Office confirmed the image lacked “human authorship” and could not be protected.

Thaler appealed, but US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that human authorship is a fundamental copyright requirement. A federal appeals court in Washington, DC upheld that decision in 2025. Thaler then asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it had “created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

A pattern across intellectual property

This is not Thaler’s first attempt to secure legal recognition for AI-created works. The US federal circuit court separately determined that AI systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human. The US Patent Office reinforced this position in 2024 with guidance stating that while AI systems cannot be listed as inventors, people can still use AI tools in the development process.

The UK Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a parallel case brought by Thaler, establishing that the position is broadly consistent across major jurisdictions.

The Copyright Office issued guidance last year confirming that AI-generated artwork produced from text prompts is not eligible for copyright protection. However, works where a human author makes creative choices — selecting, arranging, or modifying AI output — may still qualify, depending on the degree of human involvement.

Looking forward

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case does not set new precedent, but it signals the judiciary is comfortable with the current framework. For businesses using generative AI to produce images, designs or other creative assets, the practical implication is clear: purely AI-generated output remains unprotectable. Companies and creators relying on AI tools will need to demonstrate meaningful human creative input to secure copyright for their work.

Share this article