View source for News Supreme Court Denies Review Thaler v Perlmutter 2026

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.<ref name="mayerbrown">[https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/supreme-court-denies-review-in-ai-authorship-case Mayer Brown, "Supreme Court Denies Review in AI Authorship Case" (March 2026)]</ref><ref name="scotus">[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html Supreme Court Docket, No. 25-449]</ref>

== Background ==

Dr. Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork titled ''A Recent Entrance to Paradise'', which was autonomously generated by his AI system, the "Creativity Machine" (also known as DABUS). Thaler listed the AI as the sole author and conceded that no human contributed creative input to the work.<ref name="reedsmith">[https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mlpl/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-thaler-v-perlmutter-human-only-rule-for-ai/ Reed Smith, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: Human-Only Rule for AI" (March 2026)]</ref><ref name="bakerdonelson">[https://www.bakerdonelson.com/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-cannot-be-an-author-under-the-copyright-act Baker Donelson, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: AI Cannot Be an 'Author' Under the Copyright Act" (March 2026)]</ref>

The U.S. Copyright Office denied registration, citing its longstanding policy requiring human authorship. Thaler sued the Register of Copyrights (Shira Perlmutter) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

== 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.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

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.<ref name="mayerbrown" /> 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.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

== 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.<ref name="bakerdonelson" /> 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.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

The Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, without comment, leaving the D.C. Circuit's ruling intact.<ref name="mayerbrown" /><ref name="scotus" />

== 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.<ref name="reedsmith" /><ref name="joneswalker">[https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/ai-law-blog/with-thaler-closed-courts-must-now-turn-to-the-harder-question-of-ai-assisted-au.html?id=102mnf5 Jones Walker, "With Thaler Closed, Courts Must Now Turn to the Harder Question of AI-Assisted Authorship" (March 2026)]</ref>

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.<ref name="hklaw">[https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/the-final-word-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-on-ai-authorship Holland & Knight, "The Final Word: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on AI Authorship" (March 2026)]</ref>

== Related Cases ==

Thaler has also pursued parallel litigation on AI inventorship under patent law, equally without success. See [[Thaler-v-Vidal|Thaler v. Vidal]].

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Copyright Law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court]]
[[Category:AI Authorship]]