AI-Generated Art Can't Be Copyrighted After Supreme Court Declines To Review the Rule (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180897030
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/03/0545246/ai-generated-art-cant-be-copyrighted-after-supreme-court-declines-to-review-the-rule
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
> 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 U.S. 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, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." That ruling was [2]later upheld in 2025 by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. As reported by [3]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."
The U.S. federal circuit court also determined that AI systems [4]can't patent inventions because they aren't human, which the U.S. Patent Office [5]reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance. The UK Supreme Court [6]made a similar determination .
[1] https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/03/18/1918240/us-appeals-court-rejects-copyrights-for-ai-generated-art
[3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-asked-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-creations-2025-10-10/
[4] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/22/08/08/1846248/inventors-must-be-human-federal-circuit-rules-in-blow-to-ai
[5] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/02/14/2158219/us-patent-office-confirms-ai-cant-hold-patents
[6] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/12/20/1217248/ai-cannot-be-patent-inventor-uk-supreme-court-rules-in-landmark-case
What does this mean for AI-Generated software? (Score:2)
Is AI generated software not protected by default?
Re: What does this mean for AI-Generated software? (Score:2)
Correct. Although once you add your own stuff to an AI generated software project then slap a license on it then you're probably covered.
I don't get it (Score:2)
> 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."
You can still use AI and copyright stuff under your name, so I'm not sure what the problem here is. I think this guy just wants attention and his "creations" won't get it any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think this nails it, that the issue is the people wanting to do stunts of saying a 'machine' holds the copyright.
I suppose the decision can play a factor if someone can prove a work is *wholly* generated despite a holder's claim that it is at least partially human created, but good luck doing that versus the 'author' claiming any generated output that matches now is an artifact of the models having ingested their content.
God, can people PLEASE report correctly... (Score:4, Informative)
... on AI and copyright?
"A Recent Entrance to Paradise" was rejected because it had no human authorship. There was - by design - no human input, no prompt, not even human control (to the degree possible) over the training.
The actual USPTO stance on AI is that AI is a tool , and tools can't hold copyright (nor can animals - only humans). The ability to gain copyright protection on a work is based on human creative endeavour regardless of what tools are used. If the amount of human creative input is sub-threshold, then the result cannot have any copyright protection, but if the human creative work is above threshold, then it can, on the basis of the creative things that the human did. Note that even selection of outputs from a large output set can (depending on the circumstances) qualify; curation is copyrightable. The USPTO specifically states as much.
I myself hold a copyright on a work made with the use of AI tools. Officially registered with the USPTO (I went with them even though I don't live there because they have an official registry and tend to be precedent-setting). I fully disclosed the use of AI (what it did vs. what I did) in my application. You absolutely can copyright works made with AI tools. But (A) the tool cannot hold the copyright, and (B) you have to have done more than just write "a cute puppy" or whatnot and post the first thing that comes up. You have to have done a threshold amount of creative work, and that threshold creative work becomes the basis for protection. Use of AI tools does not disqualify a work from protection.
Re: (Score:2)
(To be clear, I do have some gripes with the current status. Namely, I think there's a double standard applied vs. cameras, which are also based on tools, but you'll even get e.g. fixed security footage - essentially zero human creative effort - treated as copyright protected, or photos taken with little thought or curation treated as protected. But in this regard, the solution is to be stricter with photography, not more lax with AI)
Re: (Score:2)
> fixed security footage - essentially zero human creative effort - treated as copyright protected,
So why can't the porch pirates demand residuals every time their performance is re-aired?
How much did Alec Baldwin make for shooting someone, while the poor ICE agents have to make do with their lousy GS-5 salary.
The only way (Score:2)
This is the only way any sanity at all can exist. Otherwise you have AI crank out an endless stream of content for the sole purpose of getting first copyright.
I really don't know how this entire thing is going to be dealt with in the future.
The other day, I was thinking about AI, as it pertains to the possibility of having entertainment (either video, music, or a full-blown interactive game) produced real-time for the consumer, on demand, based on their feedback. This reminded me of the book Ender's Game.
Nothing burger (Score:2)
Just modify the AI generated content slightly in some way and you can claim full copyright. It's that simple. You have rights. The AI does not.
AI generated work is not protected (Score:2)
While this has not been tested, it would seem that if AI generated art cannot be copyrighted then anything generated by AI is not protected in other ways. For example, on another post, a lawyer extolling the virtues of AI was saying how much it reduced his workload by using AI to generated filings, notes, etc. Generally attorney creations are protected as work product and privileged if not public. That runs into two questions: Would notes generated by AI be considered as not privileged? Do clients have to p
Adverts and films? (Score:2)
So then - all these AI generated adverts and film sections...we're saying those can't be copyrighted? I can just take them and do what I want? Sounds too good to be true so I'm assuming I'm missing a restriction somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the catch is that you have to:
- Be able to prove that the subject is AI generated
- That you have to be able to extricate the AI output from any human curated elements
Here it was easy as the person said the work was wholly generated. Once you have it as merely part of a whole, it becomes difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Thaler could have copyrighted it, the algorithm cant
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the AI generated portion cant be. Ie if you generative fill on a photoshop design you've been working on, you can copyright the whole design, but the AI generated fill part, itsn't necessarily covered.
I suspect the fine details arent fully worked out in precedent yet, but they'll get there.
This is the best possible outcome. You cant just fire people and replace them with AI if you want IP. If I make an advertisement and want copyright it'll need at least SOME work done by humans. If you want musi