Supreme Court Asked to Find Copyright Law Permits AI Authors

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler asked the US Supreme Court to find work created by an AI system without direct contribution from a human author can be copyrighted.

Nothing in the law bars Thaler’s “Creativity Machine” from being deemed the author of a registered copyright for the work “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” Thaler argued in a petition for certiorari filed Thursday at the US Supreme Court. The petition, provided to Bloomberg Law by Thaler’s attorney but not yet docketed by the court, said lower courts and the US Copyright Office impermissibly read a human authorship requirement into copyright law.

“The Copyright Office has vastly overstepped its authority” to create “extra-statutory” policy that’s “deeply hostile to the use of technology,” Thaler argued, adding the position undermines the US bid to be a world leader in AI.

The Copyright Office refused to register Thaler’s image in 2019 because according to his application it was generated by a machine. Thaler sued the office, but the US District Court for the District of Columbia also found human involvement necessary for registration. The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that ruling and denied a bid for rehearing before the full circuit.

The unanimous panel said text of the Copyright Act of 1976, “taken as a whole, is best read as making humanity a necessary condition for authorship.” That law treats copyright as a heritable property right, it said, suggesting an entity that can’t own property or have heirs can’t be an author. It also couches copyright terms to a human lifespan, requires a “signature” to transfer rights, and refers to author “intention” and “nationality or domicile,” the panel said.

Thaler’s petition argued the Copyright Office is “policing methods of creation” and “placing a judgment on AI users” by denying registration based on the work’s methods. Extending its logic would also nullify photography copyright because it disregards randomness and luck that wasn’t a direct contribution of a human author, Thaler said.

The Copyright Office has said AI-created works aren’t barred from registration, but depend on the degree of contribution from a human author. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged unsettled questions about evaluating input by a human using AI to create, but said “that is neither here nor there” in this case because Thaler listed the machine as the author.

Thaler argued two theories for why the lower rulings should be overturned: first, that “Paradise” is a work for hire under common law principles, as he directed its creation by programming the AI and prompting the work. Alternatively, he said, the classic property principle of ascension holds that property created by property—like the offspring of livestock—is owned by the original property’s owner.

The Justice Department represents the Copyright Office in the lower courts. Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP represents Thaler.

The case is Thaler v. Perlmutter, U.S., Petition filed 10/9/25.