The Supreme Court Decision That Settled This (For Now)
On March 2, 2026, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter (Case No. 25-449), ending Stephen Thaler's multi-year legal battle to establish that AI systems can hold copyright. Thaler had argued that his AI system DABUS autonomously created the artwork 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' and that he, as DABUS's owner, should own the copyright. The US Copyright Office, the DC District Court in 2023, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025 all rejected this argument. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves these lower court decisions in place. The current legal principle is now settled for the foreseeable future: human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright protection under US law. AI is a tool — not an author.
The Practical Spectrum: From No Protection to Full Protection
| How You Created It | Copyright Protection | What the Law Says | Best Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typed a prompt, accepted the AI output unchanged | None — not copyrightable | Copyright Office: prompting alone does not constitute sufficient human authorship | Don't rely on copyright for this content. It's in the public domain. |
| Typed a prompt, selected the best output from 10 variations | Weak to moderate — depends on the nature of selection | Courts are still working this out — selection and arrangement can support copyright if choices are creative enough | Document your selection criteria and why specific elements were chosen |
| Used AI for a first draft, significantly edited and added original content | Strong — the human edits and additions are protectable | Copyright protects the human-authored elements; the pure AI elements are not protected | Keep records of what you added/changed vs. what the AI generated |
| Provided detailed creative direction: specific style, structure, content requirements | Moderate to strong — courts looking at degree of human creative control | More creative direction = stronger human authorship claim | Document your creative brief and the specific choices you made |
| Compiled and arranged AI-generated elements with original human curation | Moderate — the compilation/arrangement can be protected even if individual elements are not | Like a database copyright — the selection and arrangement, not the content itself | Document your curatorial choices and the overall structure you designed |
Also on LumiChats
The Landmark Cases Every Creator Needs to Know
- Thaler v. Perlmutter (2026): Supreme Court declined to hear. Confirms: pure AI output is not copyrightable. Human authorship required. This is now settled law.
- Bartz et al. v. Anthropic (settled 2025-2026): Authors sued Anthropic for training Claude on their books. The court ruled that AI training on copyrighted books constitutes fair use — but storing pirated copies does not. The case settled for $1.5 billion with approximately $3,000 per work. Significant for creators concerned about their existing work being used for AI training.
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: Court found that using Westlaw's legal headnotes to train an AI legal research tool was NOT fair use. The distinction: Ross's tool directly competed with Westlaw (market displacement). The market harm analysis is becoming central to AI copyright cases.
- Disney et al. v. Midjourney (ongoing): Disney and other studios allege Midjourney used their copyrighted characters in training data. Discovery ongoing as of March 2026 — this case will clarify whether image generation AI training on commercial IP constitutes infringement.
Practical Answers for Creators and Businesses
- Can I copyright my AI-generated blog posts? Not if you typed a prompt and published the output. If you significantly edited, restructured, and added original ideas, the edits and additions are protectable — but registering the work requires disclosing which parts are AI-generated per Copyright Office guidance.
- Can I copyright AI-generated images for commercial use? The image itself is not copyrightable if purely AI-generated. You can still sell and use AI-generated images commercially — copyright is about registration and licensing protection, not the legal right to sell. You just can't stop others from copying your purely AI-generated image.
- Can my company copyright AI-generated code? Code with meaningful human creative contribution is protectable. Pure AI output with no human editing has the same problem as other pure AI content. Document your developers' creative contributions to AI-assisted code.
- What should I tell my clients about AI-assisted work? Transparency is increasingly expected and legally prudent. If your deliverable includes significant AI-generated content, your contract should address ownership rights — because those rights are more limited than for fully human-authored work.
Pro Tip: The most important practical step for any creator using AI professionally: start keeping a 'creative decision log' for AI-assisted projects. Note what you directed the AI to create, what you selected among options, what you edited, and what original contributions you made. This documentation becomes your evidence of human authorship if copyright questions arise. It costs nothing and takes 2-3 minutes per project.
📚 Read Next
Note: This guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an IP attorney for advice specific to your situation.