The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to address the copyright eligibility of art created by artificial intelligence, leaving lower court decisions intact.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether art generated by artificial intelligence (AI) can be copyrighted under U.S. law. This decision comes in response to a case involving Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, who was denied copyright protection for a piece of visual art created by his AI technology.
Thaler had approached the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld a ruling from the U.S. Copyright Office, which stated that works produced by AI are ineligible for copyright protection due to the absence of a human creator. Thaler, based in St. Charles, Missouri, applied for federal copyright registration in 2018 for his artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The piece depicts train tracks leading into a portal, surrounded by vibrant green and purple plant imagery.
In 2022, Thaler’s application was rejected on the grounds that copyright law requires a human author for creative works. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that this decision remains in effect.
The Trump administration had previously urged the Supreme Court not to take up Thaler’s appeal. The Copyright Office has also denied copyright requests from other artists seeking protection for images generated with the AI platform Midjourney. Unlike Thaler, these artists claimed they deserved copyright for images they created with AI assistance, while Thaler argued that his AI system independently generated “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
A federal judge in Washington upheld the Copyright Office’s decision in Thaler’s case in 2023, emphasizing that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright eligibility. This ruling was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025.
Thaler’s legal team expressed concern over the implications of the Copyright Office’s stance, stating, “Even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late. The Copyright Office will have irreversibly and negatively impacted AI development and use in the creative industry during critically important years.”
The administration reiterated its position, noting that while the Copyright Act does not explicitly define the term “author,” various provisions indicate that it refers to a human rather than a machine.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to address issues surrounding AI and intellectual property. Thaler previously sought the Court’s intervention in a separate case regarding whether AI-generated inventions could qualify for U.S. patent protection. His patent applications were similarly rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on grounds consistent with those applied to his copyright claims.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to engage with the complexities of AI-generated art and its copyright implications leaves significant questions unanswered, particularly as AI technology continues to evolve and permeate various creative fields.
As the debate over AI and intellectual property rights continues, the implications of these rulings may have lasting effects on artists, technologists, and the broader creative industry.
According to The American Bazaar, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the ongoing challenges faced by creators and innovators in navigating the intersection of technology and copyright law.