AI Art Isn't Art, or Copyrightable Art Anyway
looorg writes:
Supreme court declines to hear dispute over copyright in regards to AI generated art. So AI generated art is not copyrightable. If that is the case are other things generated by AI? Code?
Computer scientist Stephen Thaler has once again failed before the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the USA refused on Monday to address the question of whether art created by artificial intelligence (AI) can be protected by copyright under US law and dismissed a lawsuit by Thaler. The case has been dealt with by various courts over several years.
From Reuters:
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up the issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system.
Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection because it did not have a human creator.
Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," visual art he said his AI technology "DABUS" created. The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and purple plant imagery.
The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to receive a copyright.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear Thaler's appeal.
The Copyright Office has separately rejected bids by artists for copyrights on images generated by the AI system Midjourney. Those artists argued that they were entitled to copyrights for images they created with AI assistance - unlike Thaler, who said his system created "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" independently.
A federal judge in Washington upheld the office's decision in Thaler's case in 2023, writing that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement of copyright." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2025.
Thaler's lawyers told the Supreme Court in a filing that his case was of "paramount importance" considering the rapid rise of generative AI.
With a refusal by the court to hear the appeal, Thaler's lawyers said, "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."
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Copyright-dispute-over-AI-generated-art-US-Supreme-Court-dismisses-case-11196323.html
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.