The debate over whether a machine can be an artist reached its final legal destination this week. The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, effectively upholding the rule that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection, leaving AI-generated art out of the equation.
Supreme Court refuses to grant copyright protection to AI-generated art
Thaler has been fighting for years to get his AI system, “DABUS,” recognized by the law. The case centered on a visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which Thaler claimed the AI generated independently.
The main point of the lawsuit relies on how the US Copyright Office defines what an author is. Since Thaler first applied for registration in 2018, the office has consistently rejected his claims. Their reasoning is simple: creative works must have human authors to qualify for federal protection.
Lower courts previously supported this stance. As reported by Reuters, a federal judge in Washington described human authorship as a “bedrock requirement” of copyright law. The Trump administration also weighed in, urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case, arguing that the law clearly refers to humans rather than machines.
Plaintiff alleges a “chilling effect”
Thaler’s legal team argued that this ruling is of “paramount importance” given the explosive growth of generative AI. They alleged that not giving AI-generated works copyright protection could have a “chilling effect.”
However, the current legal framework remains firm. You can use AI as a tool, just like a photographer uses a camera or a designer uses Photoshop. But the law says that there must be a significant level of human creative control. As The Verge reports, the Copyright Office turned down Thaler’s request about “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” in 2019. They have a firm stance: images generated purely from text prompts do not currently meet that standard.
Previous attempts
This isn’t Thaler’s first encounter with the Supreme Court. Previously, he attempted to secure patents for inventions created by his AI, including a specialized beverage holder and a light beacon. Those requests were also turned down for the same reason: an inventor must be a real person, just like an author.
The US Patent and Trademark Office clarified in 2024 that while AI cannot be listed as an inventor, humans can still use AI tools to help them come up with new ideas. The degree of human involvement in the project is the key.
The ruling provides a temporary shield for human creators against a flood of machine-generated content. In short, you need to be the one driving if you want to keep your work safe. However, it also leaves many questions open for the future.
The post AI-Generated Art Can’t Get Copyright Protection, Supreme Court Confirms appeared first on Android Headlines.
