US Supreme Court upholds human authorship requirement in AI copyright case

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:

Source: Noah Wire Services

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.