AI-generated art copyright law remains firmly anchored to human creators after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case challenging that principle.

The justices refused to take up an appeal from Missouri computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright protection for a visual artwork created by his artificial intelligence system, DABUS. Lower courts had already upheld the U.S. Copyright Office’s determination that the work was not eligible for protection because it lacked a human author.

AI-Generated Art Copyright Law and the Human Authorship Requirement

At the center of the dispute was a piece titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which Thaler said was independently generated by his AI system DABUS. The image depicts train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by green and purple plant-like imagery.

Thaler applied for federal copyright registration in 2018. In 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, concluding that creative works must have human authors to qualify for copyright protection.

A federal judge in Washington upheld that decision in 2023, describing human authorship requirement copyright AI standards as a “bedrock requirement of copyright.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2025.

By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court left those rulings intact, reinforcing the current interpretation of AI-generated art copyright law.

Stephen Thaler DABUS Copyright Rejected After Lower Court Losses

Thaler’s legal team had argued that the case was of “paramount importance” given the rapid rise of generative AI. They warned that if the Copyright Office’s position were later overturned in another case, it might be too late to undo what they described as negative impacts on AI development in the creative industry.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal. In court filings, the administration argued that although the Copyright Act does not explicitly define “author,” multiple provisions make clear the term refers to a human rather than a machine.

The Stephen Thaler DABUS copyright rejected outcome aligns with similar decisions in other AI-related intellectual property cases. The Supreme Court previously declined to hear Thaler’s arguments in a separate patent dispute involving AI-generated inventions, where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had rejected patent applications on comparable grounds.

Separately, the Copyright Office has also rejected attempts by artists to secure copyrights for images generated using the AI system Midjourney. Those applicants argued they were entitled to protection because they used AI as a tool, unlike Thaler, who maintained that DABUS independently created the artwork.

For now, the refusal to hear the case leaves the human authorship requirement copyright AI interpretation unchanged. As generative systems continue to evolve, the legal framework around AI-created works remains rooted in the principle that copyright protection depends on human creativity.