Case: Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, et al., No. 25-449
Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2025-10-14
Status: Denied
Question Presented: 1. Whether works outputted by an AI system without a direct, traditional authorial contribution by a natural person can be copyrighted.
On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, declining to address whether purely AI-generated works are eligible for copyright protection. The denial came after two conferences and three amicus briefs, suggesting the Court gave the petition genuine consideration before passing. The full docket reflects a government opposition filed January 23, 2026, in which federal respondents argued review was unwarranted.
The petition, handled by Ryan Benjamin Abbott for Thaler, framed the question as one of statutory interpretation rather than constitutional mandate, arguing Congress had not expressly limited authorship to natural persons. The government, represented by D. John Sauer, countered that the human-authorship requirement is well-settled. The denial leaves that framework undisturbed for now.
The practical consequence is that AI-generated works without meaningful human creative input remain unprotectable under current law. As generative AI tools become more capable and widely used, the line between "AI-assisted" and "AI-generated" will grow harder to draw. Congress, rather than the Court, may ultimately need to address whether and how copyright law should adapt to autonomous creative systems.