US Supreme Court Declines Review of Thaler v. Perlmutter AI Copyright Case, March 2026

The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter on 24 March 2026, leaving in place the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit had affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Copyright Office's refusal to register a copyright in a visual artwork generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence system called DABUS. The petitioner, Stephen Thaler, had listed DABUS as the sole author on the application. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits but has the practical effect of leaving the D.C. Circuit's decision as controlling precedent in that circuit.

The controlling legal basis is 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), which extends copyright protection to "original works of authorship." The Copyright Office, in its 2023 registration decision and in its broader guidance on AI-generated content, has interpreted the authorship requirement of section 102(a) to demand human creative expression. The D.C. Circuit's opinion in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233, applied that standard and concluded that the Copyright Act does not protect works produced by a machine without human creative input. The Office had also declined to register the work under its longstanding human authorship requirement, a policy derived from Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), and reaffirmed in Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, § 306.

The practical effect on AI developers, content platforms, and rights holders is significant. Works generated entirely by AI systems without human authorship selection, arrangement, or creative expression remain unregistrable and unprotected under U.S. copyright law. Developers that have marketed AI-generated content as proprietary creative output cannot rely on copyright as the primary protection mechanism. Conversely, users and competitors may reproduce AI-generated outputs without infringing copyright, absent some other intellectual property protection. Rights holders seeking to protect AI-assisted works must demonstrate that a human author exercised sufficient creative control over the final output to satisfy section 102(a).

The certiorari denial leaves open several questions. The degree of human creative input required to satisfy section 102(a) for AI-assisted works remains unsettled. The Copyright Office addressed this partially in its March 2023 guidance on AI-generated works and in registration decisions involving AI-assisted images, but has not issued comprehensive rules through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Congress has not enacted legislation amending the definition of authorship. Multiple pending registration applications and district court cases involving partially AI-generated works will continue to develop the standard below the level of the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a definitive ruling on the same question, creating the potential for a future circuit split.

Prokopiev Law Group advises technology companies, content developers, and intellectual property rights holders on copyright registration strategy for AI-generated and AI-assisted works. We maintain a dedicated partner network for U.S. intellectual property litigation and Copyright Office proceedings. Parties with questions regarding copyright registrability of AI outputs, protection strategies for AI-generated content, or compliance with evolving Copyright Office guidance are welcome to contact us. Our practice covers: AI copyright registration, human authorship documentation strategy, AI-assisted content IP structuring, copyright infringement analysis for AI outputs, U.S. and cross-border IP advisory, and related regulatory and litigation support.

Source: Supreme Court of the United States, Order List (March 24, 2026), cert. denied, Thaler v. Perlmutter; United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233; U.S. Copyright Office, AI and Copyright guidance. Official URLs: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/25; https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

The information provided is not legal, tax, investment, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your own legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. Some parts of the text may be automatically generated. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information.