The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your AI-generated art

Source: Engadget

Background

In 2018, computer scientist Stephen Thaler applied for copyright protection for an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike works created with tools such as ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler’s piece was generated by an AI system he had built himself.

The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022, stating that the work was not created by a human author. Thaler appealed the decision, but both a federal judge in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against him.

Supreme Court Decision

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler’s case. By refusing certiorari, the Court let the lower‑court ruling stand, meaning the copyright claim remains denied.

The Supreme Court’s refusal does not preclude future cases from reaching the Court, but Thaler’s lawyers warned that even if the Court later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, “it will be too late,” noting the negative impact on the creative industry during “critically important years.”

Related Patent and Trademark Efforts

Thaler also submitted applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for AI‑generated inventions. Those applications were rejected for the same reason: the inventions were not considered to be the product of a human inventor.

This article originally appeared on Engadget.
Read the original article