Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: "Human-Only Rule" for AI Works Stands

On March 2, 2026, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place lower court rulings that established a key principle: works created entirely by artificial intelligence, without meaningful human involvement, cannot receive copyright protection under current U.S. law. 

This decision has significant implications for businesses, content creators, and anyone using AI tools to generate text, images, music, or other creative works. 

What was the case about?

Dr. Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright for a visual artwork generated entirely by an AI system he designed. In his application, Dr. Thaler acknowledged that the image was created by the AI without traditional human authorship, but argued he should still be recognized as the "author" because he owned and programmed the system. 

The U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application based on its "Human Authorship Requirement," a longstanding policy stating that copyright protection only extends to works created by humans.  Both the district court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Copyright Office, and the Supreme Court has now declined to reconsider that ruling.

So what?

AI-generated content has no copyright protection. If a work is created entirely by AI without sufficient human authorship, meaning a human did not exercise creative control over the work's expressive elements through selection, arrangement, or substantive modification, it cannot be registered for copyright in the United States, potentially allowing others to freely copy, distribute, or use such content. 

The Copyright Office's current policies remain in effect. When applying for copyright registration, you must disclose which portions of your work were generated by AI. If your work consists entirely of AI-generated material, the Copyright Office will refuse to register it. 

Using AI as a tool does not automatically disqualify your work. The Copyright Office continues to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. Works that combine AI-generated elements with clear human creative contributions may still qualify for protection, but only for the human-authored portions.

What this means for businesses 

The Bar for Human Involvement Is High. Recent Copyright Office decisions illustrate how strictly this standard is applied. In one case involving a comic book called Zarya of the Dawn, the Office refused to grant copyright protection for images even though the creator had provided "hundreds or thousands of descriptive prompts" to achieve the desired result. In another case involving a digital artwork titled Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, copyright was denied despite the creator entering more than 624 text prompts with detailed instructions on genre, tone, color, and style. 

Simply giving instructions to an AI, no matter how detailed or numerous, may not be enough to establish the human authorship required for copyright protection. 

International Rules Differ. Other countries are exploring differing approaches. The United Kingdom, for example, grants copyright to "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken," which can include AI-generated works.  China has also recognized that AI-generated images may be eligible for copyright protection.

This creates a complicated landscape for global businesses: a work might be protected abroad but remain unprotected in the United States.

Your Content Strategy May Need to Change. If your business uses AI-generated content, you should assess how that content fits into your intellectual property portfolio.   Works without human authorship may require alternative protection strategies, such as treating them as trade secrets with controlled access or using contractual restrictions like limited license terms.

What to Do Now

Build human creativity into your process. Ensure that identifiable human contributions are part of the conception, selection, arrangement, or editing of any work you intend to protect.  Move beyond simply pressing "generate" and make deliberate creative choices that shape the final result. 

Document everything. Maintain records of prompts, iterations, curation decisions, edits, and any post-generation modifications to support both copyright registration applications and potential enforcement actions. 

Establish review checkpoints. Build review and editing stages into your workflows to capture creative judgment, not just quality control. Having humans make meaningful creative decisions at each stage strengthens authorship claims. 

Accurate copyright application disclosures. When registering works that involve AI, clearly distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated material and ensure accurate disclosures to increase chances of successful registration. 

Consider alternative protections for AI-only content. For outputs that lack human authorship, explore options such as design patent or industrial design protection, trade secret protection through controlled access or contractual restrictions via limited license terms. 

Bottom line

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case leaves the Copyright Office's "human authorship" policy firmly in place. AI systems are not recognized as authors under U.S. law, and works viewed as wholly AI-generated cannot be registered for copyright protection. 

For businesses and creators, this means designing processes around human creativity at the core, making accurate disclosures in registration applications, and setting realistic expectations about what can and cannot be protected. While some countries are moving toward explicit protection for computer-generated works, U.S. law currently requires a human hand in the creative process.