The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a challenge over whether images produced solely by generative artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection, effectively leaving intact rulings that limit U.S. copyright to works with human authors. According to reporting by Decrypt, the court’s refusal ends Stephen Thaler’s latest bid to secure registration for an image generated by his AI system while broader debate about AI and intellectual property remains unresolved. [2][5]

The dispute centres on Thaler’s Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, or DABUS, and an artwork he described as “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler first sought copyright registration in 2018; the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022 on the ground that federal law requires human authorship. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently affirmed the refusal. According to the Copyright Office’s summary of the appeals decision, the court described human authorship as a “bedrock requirement of copyright.” [1][6]

Federal judges at multiple levels agreed with the Copyright Office that a work generated entirely without human creative input does not qualify for protection under current law. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling upheld the lower courts’ view that existing statutory language and precedent confine copyright to human creators, a position the appeals court set out in its published opinion. Thaler’s legal team has continued to press the issue, arguing the law should adapt to technological change. [6][3]

Critics and supporters of Thaler’s effort have characterised the litigation in contrasting terms. Brian Fyre, a University of Kentucky law professor, told Decrypt that “Thaler has been pursuing this somewhat quixotic litigation over an image created by an early generative AI model that he created and named the ‘creativity machine,’” and added that “Pretty much everyone across the board has said human authorship is required, and AI doesn’t have human authorship, whatever we mean by that.” Thaler’s petition argued that “The Copyright Office’s reliance on its own nonstatutory requirements have led to an improper cabining of United States copyright law in contradiction of this Court’s precedent that copyright law should accommodate technological progress.” Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbott described the Supreme Court’s refusal as “disappointing” and said the Court often waits for circuit splits before taking on such issues. [1][2]

The U.S. government urged the high court not to take the case, filing a brief that said the D.C. Circuit’s decision should stand. The government rejected the contention that denying registration would chill investment in AI or eliminate incentives to develop creative AI tools, recommending deference to the appellate ruling. Bloomberg Law coverage of the government brief described that position as counsel for keeping the matter for further development in the lower courts. [7]

For now, American courts continue to treat generative systems as instruments rather than as independent legal authors. Legal scholars and practitioners expect further suits that test the boundary, likely from parties with clearer commercial stakes than Thaler, so the legal landscape may evolve as different federal circuits weigh similar claims. Until a court with final jurisdiction or Congress acts, the settled position across the relevant decisions is that copyright protection in the United States remains tied to human authorship. [1][4]

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph:

Source: Noah Wire Services