The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether art made by artificial intelligence can qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law. The justices turned away an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright for an image created by his AI system.
Thaler, who lives in St. Charles, Missouri, applied in 2018 for a federal copyright registration for a work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” He said his AI system, called DABUS, created the image on its own. The artwork shows train tracks leading into a bright portal, framed by green and purple plant-like forms.
The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022. It said copyright law protects only works created by human authors. Because Thaler listed his AI system as the sole creator, the office found the image ineligible.
Humanity as the Bedrock: Supreme Court Closes the Door on AI-Authored Copyrights
Thaler challenged that decision in court. In 2023, a federal judge in Washington upheld the Copyright Office’s ruling. The judge wrote that human authorship is a “bedrock requirement of copyright.” In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed and affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Thaler then asked the Supreme Court to review the case. On Monday, the justices declined to hear it. The court did not explain its reasoning, as is common when it denies review.
In filings to the Supreme Court, Thaler’s lawyers argued that the issue carries broad impact given the rapid growth of generative AI tools. They warned that if courts do not clarify the law now, the Copyright Office’s stance could slow AI development in the creative sector during key years of growth.
The Trump administration urged the court not to take the case. Government lawyers argued that the Copyright Act, while it does not define the word “author”, makes clear through its structure and language that Congress meant a human creator.
They said several provisions refer to authors in ways that assume human traits, such as having a lifespan.
The Copyright Office has taken a similar position in other cases. It has rejected attempts by artists to register images generated by the AI system Midjourney when those works lacked sufficient human input. In those matters, some artists argued that they shaped the final image through prompts and edits and should receive copyright for their contributions. That differs from Thaler’s claim.
He maintained that DABUS created the work without human involvement and that the machine itself should qualify as the author.
Supreme Court Upholds Human-Only Authorship in Artificial Intelligence Copyright Dispute
The Supreme Court has addressed Thaler’s claims before in a separate dispute over patent law. In that case, he argued that AI-generated inventions should qualify for patent protection. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected his patent applications, and courts upheld that decision. The Supreme Court declined to review that case as well.
The latest denial leaves in place a clear rule for now: under current U.S. law, copyright requires a human author. Courts have treated that requirement as settled doctrine. Congress could amend the statute to address AI authorship, but it has not done so.
As generative AI tools become common in art, music, and writing, disputes over ownership will likely continue. For now, creators who use AI must show meaningful human input to claim copyright. Fully autonomous machine output does not qualify.
