Artificial intelligence is now part of the creative process. Businesses, designers, marketers, software developers, authors, and content creators are using AI tools to generate images, draft copy, create prototypes, develop branding concepts, write code, and explore new ideas.
That raises an important copyright question: can an AI system be the author of a copyrighted work?
For now, the answer remains no.
The Supreme Court declined to review Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright case, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit’s decision that copyright protection requires human authorship. The Supreme Court’s denial did not include a written opinion or detailed reasoning. But the practical result is important: the D.C. Circuit’s ruling remains the controlling decision from that court, and the Copyright Office’s human-authorship requirement remains intact.
The Thaler Case
Dr. Stephen Thaler created a generative artificial intelligence system called the Creativity Machine. The Creativity Machine produced an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Dr. Thaler then filed a copyright application with the U.S. Copyright Office listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author of the work.
The Copyright Office denied the application based on its longstanding rule that copyright protection requires human authorship. Dr. Thaler appealed through administrative channels and then to federal court. The district court affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial, and the D.C. Circuit also affirmed.
The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires a work to be authored, at least initially, by a human being. Because the application listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author, and the Creativity Machine is not human, the Copyright Office properly refused registration.
What the Court Focused On
The D.C. Circuit looked at the text, structure, and purpose of the Copyright Act. The court noted that the Copyright Act uses concepts such as lifespan, death, nationality, and intention — concepts that apply to human beings, not machines. The court also noted that when Congress enacted the 1976 Copyright Act, the Copyright Office already had a longstanding interpretation that an “author” must be human.
The court also emphasized that broader policy questions about whether copyright law should protect works created by non-human systems are better left to Congress.
That is a key point. The court was not deciding every possible issue involving AI-assisted creative works. It was deciding whether a work listed as being authored solely by an AI system could be registered under current copyright law.
What This Means for AI-Generated Works
The Thaler case does not mean that every work involving AI is automatically unprotectable. It means that a work cannot be copyrighted when the claimed author is only a machine.
That distinction matters.
Many creative works today are not purely AI-generated in the way Thaler presented the work. A human may select prompts, revise outputs, arrange generated materials, combine AI-generated content with original human expression, edit images, rewrite text, choose among alternatives, or integrate AI-assisted content into a larger human-created work.
Those facts may matter. Copyright protection may still be available for the human-authored portions of a work or for the human selection, coordination, arrangement, editing, or modification of AI-assisted material. But the human contribution needs to be real, identifiable, and more than merely pressing a button.
Practical Takeaways for Creators and Businesses
For creators and businesses using AI tools, the practical lesson is simple: document the human contribution.
That may include keeping records of:
- who created the concept;
- who wrote or refined the prompts;
- who selected the final output;
- what edits were made;
- what human-created material was added;
- how the final work differs from the raw AI output;
- who made creative choices about arrangement, style, sequence, wording, design, or composition.
This is especially important for businesses using generative AI in marketing, branding, product design, website content, advertising, software development, and creative campaigns.
If a company wants to claim copyright protection, it should be able to identify the human authorship in the final work. A registration strategy should also be careful about what is claimed and what is disclaimed.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Thaler case did not create a new written rule, but it left the D.C. Circuit’s human-authorship decision in place. Under current copyright law, an AI system cannot be listed as the sole author of a copyrighted work.
For creators and businesses, the lesson is not to avoid AI altogether. The lesson is to use AI carefully, preserve evidence of human creativity, and understand that copyright protection depends on human authorship.
AI can be a powerful creative tool. But for copyright purposes, the author still needs to be human.
