US Supreme Court Says AI Art Can't Be Copyrighted, Stephen Thaler Case Ends English: US Supreme Court Says AI Art Can't Be Copyrighted, Stephen Thaler Case Ends

JAKARTA - The United States Supreme Court has officially refused to hear an appeal filed by computer scientist Stephen Thaler regarding a copyright application for an artwork that was entirely created by artificial intelligence. This decision also strengthens the position of the US Copyright Office and lower courts that only humans can be recognized as creators in the copyright law system.

The matter centers on a visual work entitled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" which is claimed to have been independently produced by Thaler's artificial intelligence system, DABUS. Since the initial filing in 2018, the US Copyright Office has consistently rejected the registration on a fundamental basis: copyright law requires human authorship.

By refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court effectively let the previous court ruling stand. In the earlier ruling, a federal judge in Washington called "human authorship a fundamental requirement in copyright law."

The US government has also previously asked the Supreme Court not to take up the case, insisting that the applicable law clearly refers to humans, not machines.

Thaler's legal team argued that the issue has "very fundamental interests" given the rapid development of generative AI. They warned that not granting copyright protection for works produced by AI could have a "chilling effect" on innovation and investment in the field.

However, the current legal framework remains firm. The US copyright authority considers AI to be a tool, just like a camera for photographers or a design software for designers. However, for a work to qualify for protection, there must be a significant level of human creative control.

The application for "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" itself has been rejected since 2019 on the grounds that works produced purely from text prompts without substantial human creative contribution do not meet the standard.

This is not the first time Thaler has tried to test the legal limits related to AI. Previously, he also applied for a patent on a number of inventions claimed to have been created by DABUS, including a special beverage container and a light beacon device. The effort was also rejected because US patent law requires the inventor to be a human individual.

In 2024, the US Patent and Trademark Office confirmed that AI cannot be listed as an inventor. However, humans can still use AI as a tool in the innovation process, as long as the main creative and conceptual roles remain in the hands of humans.

This ruling temporarily provides protection for human creators in the midst of a flood of content generated by machines. On the other hand, the decision leaves a big question about how the law will adapt to an era where the boundaries between tools and creators are increasingly blurred. In the fast-moving technology landscape, the law seems to be choosing the handbrake, not the gas pedal - at least for now.