US Supreme Court to Decide Whether AI-Generated Art Can Be Copyrighted
As artificial intelligence reshapes the boundaries of artistic creation, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a case that could redefine the very foundation of copyright law in the 21st century. The legal question at hand: Can an AI-generated work be copyrighted? And if so, who is the author?
This case, which has already sparked intense debate in legal and creative circles, marks the first time the apex court of the United States will directly address authorship and originality in the context of non-human intelligence.
Background: The Case That Triggered a Constitutional Dilemma
A digital artist, who used AI algorithms to produce a series of original paintings, filed for copyright protection under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. The U.S. Copyright Office denied the application, citing that protection is granted only to works with human authorship. According to their guidelines, “creativity must be rooted in human agency” to qualify for legal recognition.
In response, the artist filed a lawsuit challenging the Copyright Office’s interpretation, arguing that:
AI can create original works without human manipulation.
Denying protection discriminates against new forms of expression.
Copyright law must evolve to accommodate technological innovation.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The case presents several pivotal legal questions with far-reaching consequences:
🔹 Can AI be recognized as an “author” under existing copyright statutes?
The term “author” remains undefined in absolute terms within the Copyright Act, leading to interpretative gaps. The Supreme Court will assess whether authorship must be limited to natural persons or can extend to non-human agents.
🔹 Is human intervention a necessary component of protectable creative output?
The Court will consider whether AI-generated works are eligible for copyright only when guided, curated, or initiated by a human being—or whether complete autonomy of the AI still qualifies.
🔹 How could this reshape copyright protection in other creative domains?
If the ruling favors AI authorship, the ripple effects will extend to music composition, literary works, screenwriting, video games, and photography. The entire creative economy could be transformed, with legal ownership of AI output becoming a central theme in contracts and licensing.
Global Implications for IP Law
This decision could become a precedent for international jurisdictions grappling with similar concerns. India, for example, is witnessing a surge in AI-generated content, but the Copyright Act, 1957—like its U.S. counterpart—lacks provisions to define AI’s legal status in creative processes.
A favorable ruling for AI could:
Compel WIPO and national IP offices to revise definitions of authorship.
Introduce AI trusteeship models, where human handlers of AI may be considered legal rightsholders.
Force new licensing and liability structures in creative industries.
Conclusion
This case is not just about one artist or a single AI model—it is a litmus test for intellectual property in the age of algorithms. The Supreme Court’s ruling will either reaffirm the human-centric framework of copyright law or usher in a new legal era where machines may hold creative rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments