Jump to content

AI Law Wiki News for March 2, 2026

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

March 2, 2026 — Meta seeks severance; Anthropic renotices motions in Carreyrou litigation

In Carreyrou et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al., the Northern District of California docket records two March 2 filings: Meta Platforms filed a motion to sever (ECF 114), and Anthropic filed a re-notice of its motion to dismiss and motion to sever (ECF 113). These entries record requests and hearing administration, not a ruling granting severance or deciding the copyright claims.[1]

Judge P. Casey Pitts had been assigned by a February 27, 2026 order (ECF 111). That order vacated hearing and trial dates and required motions to be renoticed, while retaining existing briefing schedules.[1]

The original complaint was filed on December 22, 2025. It alleged unauthorized copying of the authors’ books for AI-model development and brought claims in the plaintiffs’ individual capacities.[2]

For subsequent developments, see the case article.

Supreme Court Denies Review Thaler v Perlmutter

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 25-449, on March 2, 2026, declining to review whether an AI system can qualify as an "author" under the Copyright Act.[3][4]

Background

Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for A Recent Entrance to Paradise, identifying Creativity Machine as the sole author and representing that the work was created without human creative contribution. The Copyright Office refused registration, and Thaler challenged that refusal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[5][6][7]

Lower Court Rulings

The D.D.C. district court granted summary judgment for the Copyright Office, holding that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement" of copyright law.[7]

The D.C. Circuit affirmed on March 18, 2025, finding that the Copyright Act implicitly requires human authors based on provisions that assume human capacities — including property ownership, lifespan-based copyright terms, and the requirement for signatures.[3] The court rejected Thaler's arguments that the AI could qualify as an author under a work-made-for-hire theory or that ownership of the AI's creation could convey authorship rights.[7]

Supreme Court Denial

Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the human-only authorship rule created a "chilling effect" on AI use and innovation.[7] The U.S. Department of Justice opposed certiorari, arguing that Thaler's case was a poor vehicle because he had disclaimed any human creative contribution, making the factual record unusually narrow.[7]

The Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, without comment, leaving the D.C. Circuit's ruling intact.[3][4]

Implications

The denial preserves the binding precedent that works generated entirely by AI — without meaningful human creative involvement — lack copyright protection. However, the ruling leaves unresolved the harder question of how much human involvement is sufficient for AI-assisted works to qualify for protection.[6][8]

Legal commentators have noted that future cases involving human-modified AI outputs may produce different outcomes, and that the threshold of "sufficient" human involvement will likely require either congressional action or further litigation to clarify.[9]

For the separate U.S. patent-inventorship proceedings, see Thaler v. Vidal.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 N.D. Cal., Carreyrou et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al., No. 5:25-cv-10897-PCP, court docket reproduced by Justia, ECF 113–114 (March 2, 2026).
  2. ↑ Original complaint, Carreyrou et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al., ECF 1 (December 22, 2025), pp. 1–4. Allegations, not judicial findings.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Mayer Brown, "Supreme Court Denies Review in AI Authorship Case" (March 2026)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court Docket, No. 25-449
  5. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Reed Smith, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: Human-Only Rule for AI" (March 2026)
  6. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Baker Donelson, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: AI Cannot Be an 'Author' Under the Copyright Act" (March 2026)
  7. ↑ Jones Walker, "With Thaler Closed, Courts Must Now Turn to the Harder Question of AI-Assisted Authorship" (March 2026)
  8. ↑ Holland & Knight, "The Final Word: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on AI Authorship" (March 2026)


Categories

Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=AI_Law_Wiki_News_for_March_2,_2026&oldid=4235"