AI-Created Artwork Denied Copyright as US Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

The case involving Stephen Thaler and the AI-generated artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” has taken another turn after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the dispute over whether works created entirely by artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection.

The case arose after Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, attempted to register a copyright for an artwork that he said was produced independently by his artificial intelligence system known as DABUS. The application was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2018.

The artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” reportedly depicts railway tracks leading into a glowing portal surrounded by colourful plant-like imagery. According to Thaler, the image was not created by a human artist but by the AI system operating autonomously.

However, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022. The office maintained that copyright protection under American law requires a human author. Since the work was claimed to have been created solely by a machine, it did not qualify for registration.

Thaler challenged the decision before the federal courts, arguing that copyright law should evolve to recognise works generated by artificial intelligence. His lawyers emphasised that the rapid development of generative AI technologies makes the issue increasingly important for creative industries.

A federal judge in Washington dismissed the challenge in 2023 and affirmed the position taken by the Copyright Office. The court stated that human authorship remains a fundamental requirement of copyright law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later upheld that judgement in 2025. The appellate court agreed that the existing legal framework clearly assumes that an “author” must be a human being.

Thaler then approached the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the lower court rulings. His legal team argued that the issue carries major implications for innovation and the future of AI-driven creativity.

They warned that if courts continue to deny protection to AI-generated works, it could discourage investment and development in emerging technologies. According to them, the legal system must adapt to changing methods of creative production.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. By refusing to take up the case, the Court effectively allowed the lower court decisions to stand, leaving intact the rule that copyright protection applies only to works created by humans.

The administration had also opposed Thaler’s appeal. Government lawyers argued that several provisions in the Copyright Act indicate that the term “author” refers to a human creator rather than a machine.

The dispute is part of a broader legal debate surrounding artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Similar questions have already arisen in cases involving AI-generated inventions and artworks produced using tools such as Midjourney.

Notably, this is not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in Thaler’s legal challenges. In a separate matter concerning AI-generated inventions, the Court had earlier refused to review whether an artificial intelligence system could be recognised as an inventor under patent law.