On 2 March 2026, the US Supreme Court declined a certiorari petition filed by Dr. Thaler (computer scientist) in relation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ judgment in Thaler v. Perlmutter (Case No. 23-5233). The first instance case was filed by Dr. Thaler against the decision of the US Copyright Office to deny his application by which he had requested to register copyright in an artwork generated entirely by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool, listing the AI tool itself as the sole author and himself as just the owner of the work. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court has left the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ judgment undisturbed, effectively establishing the human authorship requirement as the prevailing benchmark in the United States, absent any future legislative intervention. 

Arguments before the Court

Dr. Thaler raised two main arguments. His first argument was that the US copyright framework allowed him to be “considered the author” of the work at issue because the AI tool was his employee. The Court rejected this argument, stating the below:

“[This] argument misunderstands the human authorship requirement.  The Copyright Act only protects “original works of authorship.”  17 U.S.C. § 102(a). The authorship requirement applies to all copyrightable work, including workmade-for-hire.  The word “authorship,” like the word “author,” refers to a human being. {emphasis added}  As a result, the human-authorship requirement necessitates that all “original works of authorship” be created in the first instance by a human being, including those who make work for hire”. 

Moreover, the work-for-hire doctrine was found inapplicable not only because it presupposes human authorship, but also because it requires the existence of a valid copyright in the first place (a precondition that cannot be met where the underlying AI work lacks the necessary human contributions). 

His second argument was that he was considered as the work’s author because he made and used the AI tool. This argument was also dismissed by the Court which based its reasoning upon the fact that Dr. Thaler had identified the AI tool as the sole creator of the work, rather than grounding his claim on any creative contributions of his own. 

Analysis

The US Supreme Court held that under US Copyright Law an AI tool cannot hold authorship as it is not a human being. The Court based this conclusion not merely on the definition of “author,” but by interpreting holistically the law, which presupposes a human creator. This judgment draws a clear line: a purely autonomous AI output enjoys no copyright protection, although works involving human creative contribution may qualify. It should be noted, however, that the Court did not set or define the level of human contribution or creativity required for a work to be considered sufficiently “human-assisted”, leaving a significant degree of uncertainty as to where the threshold lies in practice.

Absent any future legislative intervention or case law development, the fundamental question as to which level of human intervention or creativity is required for a work produced by an AI tool to be protected, remains unresolved.  

How the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will approach similar cases remains an open and closely watched question. 

From a practical standpoint, this decision underscores the importance of documenting human input and creative contribution in works produced with the aid of AI tools. Such documentation or evidence may prove essential in establishing copyright eligibility and protection.  

For more information please contact Christos Chiotis (christos.chiotis@demetriades.com) or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.