March 3, 2026
Robots can’t sign the canvas
AI-generated art can't be copyrighted (Supreme Court declines review)
AI art can’t be copyrighted: artists split, memes explode
TLDR: The Supreme Court refused to hear the AI art case, keeping the rule that works made entirely by a machine can’t be copyrighted. Commenters are split, debating where human creativity starts, whether AI-assisted tools count, and if code is next in line—because this decision touches every digital creator.
The Supreme Court just ghosted a big fight over AI art, leaving in place the rule: no human author, no copyright. After Stephen Thaler’s bid to protect his algorithm’s image, A Recent Entrance to Paradise, faded out again (Reuters), the comments lit up like a Discord server at 3AM. Creators are asking where the line is, with one skeptic joking about pointing a camera at the street and calling it “authorship,” while another wonders if using Photoshop’s “magic fill” still counts as human. Coders jumped in too, fretting that if AI-made art can’t be owned, then what about AI-made code—is the copyright system about to eat itself?
Legal-minded commenters tried to calm the chaos: the courts are only rejecting works with zero human input. AI-assisted pieces can still be protected if a person’s creative choices show up. But the spicy crowd isn’t buying it, tossing out hot takes like “just list yourself as the author and it’s fine,” while others argue the gray area is now a fog bank. Memes flew fast—“Press X to ‘human’,” overlay joke vids, and endless banana-named bots “spitting out paintings.” The vibe: confusion, comedy, and a whole lot of courtroom cosplay.
Key Points
- •The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on AI-generated art copyright, leaving lower rulings in place.
- •Stephen Thaler sought to copyright an AI-generated image, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” on behalf of his algorithm.
- •The US Copyright Office rejected the application in 2019 and reaffirmed in 2022 that it lacked human authorship.
- •In 2023, Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled human authorship is a bedrock requirement; a DC appeals court upheld this in 2025.
- •Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2025; the Court declined review on Monday, and the Copyright Office issued new guidance last year (details not provided).