The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your AI-generated art

2026-03-040:2484www.engadget.com

The highest court in the US declined to review a case about copyrighting artwork created with the help of AI.

As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand.

The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him.

With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even ⁠if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the creative industry during "critically important years." It's worth noting that Thaler also filed applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office for AI-generated inventions, which were rejected for similar reasons.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By treetalker 2026-03-041:36

    For those who may have missed prior threads on this, the denial of a petition for certiorari has no precedential effect (other than finalizing the lower court's decision in that particular case, in most instances).

    The denial does not mean that SCOTUS "doesn't care": the area of the law is relatively new; SCOTUS almost certainly wants to let the various circuits experiment with different approaches; and SCOTUS may take a case once the law matures and a good circuit split has developed.

    It could also be that this was not the right case ("bad facts make bad law").

    Nothing to see here.

  • By ggm 2026-03-041:06

    I'm more taken by the strength of "you can't patent AI ideas" than the IPR of artwork. I get that there are far more creatives than patenters, so I am making a somewhat unfortunate choice here, but to me thats much more significant.

    The inverse proposition however may hold: AI derived proofs may PREVENT a patent because they didn't declare AI can't make prior art. I'd love to know if that does apply.

  • By WalterGR 2026-03-043:50

HackerNews