Supreme Court won’t hear AI-generated art copyright case

The Verge · Mar 2, 2026 · Collected from RSS

Full Article

Skip to main contentThe country’s highest judicial court won’t reconsider a lower court’s decision that determined AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.The country’s highest judicial court won’t reconsider a lower court’s decision that determined AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.by Emma RothMar 2, 2026, 5:58 PM UTCIllustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty ImagesEmma Roth is a news writer who covers the streaming wars, consumer tech, crypto, social media, and much more. Previously, she was a writer and editor at MUO.The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether AI-generated art can obtain a copyright, as reported earlier by Reuters. The Monday decision comes after Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, appealed a court’s decision to uphold a ruling that found AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.In 2019, the US Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s request to copyright an image, called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, on behalf of an algorithm he created. The Copyright Office reviewed the decision in 2022 and determined that the image doesn’t include “human authorship,” disqualifying it from copyright protection.After Thaler appealed the decision, US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.” That ruling was later upheld in 2025 by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. As reported by Reuters, Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it “created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively.”Last year, the Copyright Office issued new guidance that says AI-generated artwork based on text prompts isn’t protected by copyright.The Supreme Court’s decision follows several attempts by Thaler to copyright and patent the output from his AI systems. The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them. The UK Supreme Court made a similar determination in a case brought forward by Thaler.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Emma RothThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)