The U.S. Supreme Court Just Told Every AI Creator Their Work Belongs to No One

Welcome back to SavvyMonk, your daily dose of AI and tech news that actually matters.

Today's story is about what happens when a computer scientist spends nearly a decade trying to get copyright protection for art his AI made. The Supreme Court just said no. But the real story is what they didn't say.

Let's get into it.

You don’t need to be a coder to make AI work for you. Subscribe to Mindstream and get 200+ proven ideas showing how real people are using ChatGPT, Midjourney, and other tools to earn on the side.

From small wins to full-on ventures, this guide helps you turn AI skills into real results, without the overwhelm.

Get Your Free Guide

On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, the most high-profile case yet over whether AI-generated art can be copyrighted. No oral arguments. No written opinion. Just a one-line denial.

That single line now cements one of the most consequential intellectual property rulings of the AI era.

The Backstory

Stephen Thaler is a computer scientist from Missouri who built a generative AI system called the Creativity Machine. Back in 2012, the system autonomously created a piece of visual art titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what looks like green and purple plant imagery.

Here's the thing. This was 2012. Years before Midjourney, DALL-E, or Stable Diffusion existed. Most of the world hadn't even heard the phrase generative AI.

In 2018, Thaler filed a copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. He listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author. Not himself. The machine.

That decision would define everything that followed.

The Rejection

The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, ruling that creative works must have human authors to qualify for copyright protection.

Thaler challenged the decision in federal court. In 2023, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Copyright Office. The judge wrote that human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.

Thaler appealed again. On March 18, 2025, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling. Judge Patricia Millett wrote the opinion. The court found that while the Copyright Act doesn't define "author," the act taken as a whole makes clear the term refers to human beings, not machines. Machines can't own property, don't have lifespans, can't sign documents, and don't respond to economic incentives.

And then on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. End of the road for Thaler's case.

Trump's DOJ Backed the Copyright Office

In a somewhat surprising alignment, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court not to take the case. The administration argued that the Copyright Act was written for human creators, and that multiple provisions of the law make clear that "author" refers to a human rather than a machine.

This is notable because the administration has generally positioned itself as pro-AI and pro-innovation. But on this question, it sided firmly with the Copyright Office's longstanding position.

The Door That's Still Open

Here's where it gets interesting.

This ruling is narrow. It says a machine cannot be listed as an author for copyright purposes. That's it.

The D.C. Circuit was careful to point out that the human authorship requirement does not prevent copyrighting work made with the assistance of AI. The question of how much human involvement is needed for an AI-assisted work to qualify is still completely unresolved.

Thaler could have argued that he was the author by virtue of creating and directing the Creativity Machine. But he never made that argument before the Copyright Office. He listed the machine as the sole author and stuck with it. The courts noted this was waived at the agency level, so they didn't address it.

That means the bigger, messier question is still wide open. If you use AI as a tool, give it detailed prompts, curate the output, and make creative decisions along the way, can you claim authorship? The courts haven't answered that yet.

And that's the question studios, creators, and companies with serious money on the line actually care about.

The Monkey Selfie Connection

If this sounds familiar, it should. The courts drew a parallel to the 2016 Naruto v. Slater case, where a crested macaque monkey took a selfie using a nature photographer's camera.

PETA sued on the monkey's behalf for copyright. The Ninth Circuit ruled that animals lack standing under the Copyright Act.

The principle is the same. Copyright is for humans. Not monkeys. Not machines.

What Thaler's Team Had to Say

Thaler's lawyers warned that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case would "irreversibly and negatively impact AI development and use in the creative industry during critically important years."

Thaler himself told reporters that the decision reflects how difficult it is for legal frameworks to adapt to new technology. He called the interpretation "substrate chauvinism," meaning the belief that creativity must come from a biological brain.

Dennis Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri, called the timing striking given how much AI-generated content is flooding the market. He also noted that the ruling does nothing to answer the question of copyrightability for human-AI collaborations.

And he pointed to a gap that matters: Congress has been largely absent from this conversation.

Why This Matters

The practical impact is significant.

Right now, if you use AI to generate content with no meaningful human creative input, that content has no copyright protection. Anyone can use it, copy it, or sell it. There's no legal shield.

For individual creators, that's an inconvenience. For studios, publishers, and tech companies building products around AI-generated content, it's a financial risk worth potentially billions of dollars.

The Copyright Office also released updated guidance in 2025 reaffirming that AI-generated artworks made using text prompts alone will not be protected by copyright. That guidance, combined with this ruling, draws a clear line. At least for now.

But the line is going to be tested. Jason Allen, the artist who won a state fair competition with a Midjourney-generated image called "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial," is currently fighting a separate copyright battle in a Colorado federal court.

His argument is different from Thaler's. He claims significant creative control through hundreds of prompts and iterations. That case could push the boundaries of what counts as human authorship in the AI era.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court didn't make new law here. It just let existing law stand. But by refusing to hear the case, it confirmed the current framework: only humans can be authors. Machines are tools, not creators.

The question that remains is where the line sits between using AI as a tool and letting AI do the creating. That's the case everyone is waiting for. And it's not going to stay unanswered for long.

Category: Data Analysis

"Act as a senior data analyst. I have a spreadsheet of [describe your data, e.g., monthly sales figures by region for the last 2 years]. I need you to: 1) Identify the top 3 most significant trends or patterns in the data, 2) Flag any anomalies or outliers that deserve attention, 3) Suggest 2 actionable recommendations based on your findings, and 4) Write a 5-sentence executive summary I can paste into a Slack message to my team. Keep the language simple. No jargon."

An AI system was making original artwork in 2012, and the legal system still doesn't have a clear answer for who owns what AI helps create. With billions of dollars in AI-generated content flowing through every creative industry, how long before Congress is forced to step in? Hit reply, I read every response.

See you tomorrow.

— Vivek

P.S. Know someone following AI, copyright law, or the future of creative work? Forward this. They can subscribe at https://savvymonk.beehiiv.com/