Stephen Thaler’s groundbreaking case challenging copyright denial for works created autonomously by AI systems

Stephen Thaler’s groundbreaking case challenging copyright denial for works created autonomously by AI systems

United States Supreme Court is addressing the question of authorship in artificial intelligence created works

In a groundbreaking legal development, computer scientist Stephen Thaler has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling that denies copyright protection for a work of art created by artificial intelligence. This case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, raises fundamental questions about the future of creativity, intellectual property rights, and the role of non-human authorship in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

AI and “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”

In 2018, Thaler filed for copyright protection on a piece of visual art titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which he claims was autonomously generated by his AI system named Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. Unlike other cases where artists use AI as a tool, Thaler maintains that DABUS created the work independently, with no human input or guidance. However, in 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application, stating that U.S. copyright law requires human authorship as a fundamental criterion for protection. The decision was upheld in 2023 by a federal district court in Washington, D.C., and later affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2024.

Thaler’s Argument: Protecting AI-Driven Creativity

In his latest appeal to the Supreme Court, filed on Friday, Thaler argues that the decision not only contradicts the evolving nature of creativity but also has a “chilling effect” on individuals and organizations exploring AI in creative fields. According to Thaler, the Copyright Office’s stance “defies the constitutional goals” of promoting innovation and creativity, which are central to the U.S. Copyright Clause. He emphasizes that if the Court refuses to hear the case, the consequences could be irreversible for the AI-driven creative industry.

Statement from Legal Counsel

Thaler is represented by Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan, who stated, “U.S. copyright law is clear that AI-generated works are — and should be — protectable.” The legal team is pressing the Court to reconsider the threshold of authorship in light of the increasing prevalence of generative AI tools.

Broader Implications: A Precedent for the Creative Industry

This legal battle could set a critical precedent at the intersection of AI, copyright law, and intellectual property rights. The outcome could determine whether AI-generated content—ranging from visual art and literature to music and film—can receive the same legal protections as human-created works. The Copyright Office has already rejected other copyright applications involving AI-assisted tools like Midjourney, where human users claimed partial authorship. These rejections draw a clear line between AI as a tool and AI as an independent creator, a distinction that Thaler’s case seeks to challenge.

Past Setbacks: Patent Law and AI-Generated Inventions

This is not the first time Thaler has attempted to push the boundaries of AI and intellectual property law. The Supreme Court previously declined to hear his case arguing that AI-generated inventions should be eligible for U.S. patent protection. That loss in the patent space adds weight to the significance of the current copyright appeal.

The Road Ahead: Supreme Court's Pivotal Role

At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has not yet assigned a case number or indicated whether it will hear Thaler’s appeal. Still, the case presents a unique opportunity for the Court to address pressing questions about authorship, innovation, and the legal definition of creativity in the age of AI.

Thaler's Closing Statement

"If the Court denies certiorari, even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late," Thaler warned. He cautioned that without immediate intervention; the current policies will “irreversibly and negatively impact AI development and use” in the creative industry during this critical period of innovation.

Redefining Creativity in the Age of AI

Stephen Thaler’s legal challenge highlights a growing tension between technological progress and existing legal frameworks. As AI continues to evolve and shape the creative process, the courts—and ultimately Congress may need to redefine what constitutes authorship and originality in the 21st century.