The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case challenging the requirement that authors must be human, cementing existing legal standards and leaving open questions about AI-generated works.

The U.S. Supreme Court has left in place a ruling that copyright protection under American law requires a human author, closing off a bid to recognise a fully autonomous AI system as the creator of a protected work. The court’s decision not to take up Thaler v. Perlmutter means the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion now stands: works produced entirely by machines are not eligible for copyright under the Copyright Act.

The dispute centred on a visual artwork called "A Recent Entrance to Paradise", which Dr Stephen Thaler said was generated by his AI system, the Creativity Machine. In his filing, he identified the machine as the sole author and listed himself as the owner. The Copyright Office rejected the application, and both the district court and the appeals court agreed that the law does not extend authorship to a non-human creator.

In its reasoning, the D.C. Circuit pointed to several parts of the statute that assume an author is a person, including provisions tied to lifespan, inheritance and ownership. The court said those features reflect a broader legislative and historical understanding that authorship comes from human creativity, with software acting only as a tool rather than an independent source of authorship.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case, reported in March 2026 by several legal commentators, leaves one of the most closely watched questions in AI and copyright law unresolved only at the margins. While the core rule is now clear, the courts have not fixed a precise threshold for how much human input is enough when AI is involved in the creative process.

That uncertainty matters for creators, companies and lawyers trying to register AI-assisted works. The practical lesson, as commentators noted after the denial of review, is that applicants will need to show meaningful human creative contribution if they want copyright protection. Any broader change to the framework is now likely to have to come from Congress rather than the courts.

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph: - Paragraph 1: [2], [5] - Paragraph 2: [3], [4] - Paragraph 3: [1], [4] - Paragraph 4: [2], [7] - Paragraph 5: [3], [5], [6]

Source: Noah Wire Services

Verification / Sources

  • https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/thaler-v-perlmutter-human-authorship-8871308/ - Please view link - unable to able to access data
  • https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/supreme-court-denies-review-in-ai-authorship-case - In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, affirming the D.C. Circuit's decision that works created entirely by autonomous AI systems are ineligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act. This ruling reinforces the requirement for human authorship in copyright eligibility, as the court found that the statute presupposes a human author, with machines serving only as tools rather than independent creators. The decision leaves unresolved issues regarding the precise level of human involvement needed for copyright protection in AI-generated works, suggesting that any changes to this framework will now likely require action from Congress.
  • https://www.prokopievlaw.com/post/u-s-supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-authorship-case-march-2026 - In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires human authorship for works to be eligible for copyright protection. The case involved Dr. Stephen Thaler's attempt to secure copyright for an AI-generated artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise.' The Supreme Court's denial effectively applies this principle nationwide, reinforcing the need for practitioners to thoroughly document meaningful human creative contribution when seeking copyright protection for AI-related works.
  • https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/03/thaler-v-perlmutter - In March 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court held that the Copyright Act requires works to be authored by human beings to be eligible for copyright protection, affirming the district court's decision upholding the Copyright Office's denial of copyright registration for visual art generated solely by artificial intelligence. The case involved Dr. Stephen Thaler's AI program, the 'Creativity Machine,' which produced a two-dimensional visual work of art titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise.' Thaler's application to register the work was denied because copyright law extends only to works created by human beings.
  • https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/ip-updates/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-thaler-v-perlmutter-leaving-human-authorship-requirement-intact.html - In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit's decision that copyright protection under U.S. law requires human authorship. The case involved Dr. Stephen Thaler's attempt to secure copyright for an AI-generated artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise.' The Supreme Court's denial reinforces the foundational principle of U.S. copyright law that works generated autonomously by machines, without meaningful human creative contribution, are not eligible for copyright protection.
  • https://www.bakerdonelson.com/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-cannot-be-an-author-under-the-copyright-act - In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. The case involved Dr. Stephen Thaler's attempt to secure copyright for an AI-generated artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise.' The Supreme Court's denial reinforces the position that, under current law, AI is a tool, not an author, and that works generated solely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act.
  • https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=10037ea8-36d9-4f5b-ada2-061fde069095 - In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant review in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, leaving standing the D.C. Circuit's opinion that affirmed the U.S. Copyright Office's requirement of human authorship for works to be eligible for copyright protection. The case involved a piece of visual art, 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise,' created entirely through the use of an AI system developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler. The Supreme Court's denial leaves unresolved questions regarding AI-generated content, but reinforces the foundational principle of U.S. copyright law that works generated autonomously by machines, without meaningful human creative contribution, are not eligible for copyright protection.

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We've since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 10

Notes: The article discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision in March 2026, ensuring high freshness. No evidence of recycled or outdated content was found.

Quotes check

Score: 10

Notes: The article does not contain direct quotes, relying instead on paraphrased information from various sources. All paraphrased information aligns with the original sources, with no discrepancies noted.

Source reliability

Score: 10

Notes: The article cites reputable legal publications and official court documents, including Mayer Brown, Prokopiev Law, Baker Donelson, and Finnegan. These sources are well-regarded in the legal community, enhancing the article's credibility.

Plausibility check

Score: 10

Notes: The claims made in the article are consistent with known facts and recent legal developments. The article provides specific details, such as the case number (25-449) and the date of the Supreme Court's decision (March 2, 2026), which are verifiable and accurate.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary: The article provides a timely and accurate summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter, citing reputable and independent sources. All claims are verifiable, and the content is free from opinion or subjective interpretation, meeting the highest standards of factual reporting.