Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who develops artificial intelligence systems, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether creative works produced entirely by artificial intelligence can qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law. The petition, filed on October 9, 2025, seeks review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the Copyright Office’s position that only works created by human authors are eligible for copyright registration.

Photo Source: A Recent Entrance to Paradise, by Dr. Stephen Thaler/Creativity Machine The case centers on A Recent Entrance to Paradise, a visual artwork generated in 2018 by one of Dr. Thaler’s AI systems. In his application, Thaler disclosed that the work was produced autonomously without human involvement. The Copyright Office denied the request, citing its “human authorship requirement,” a policy that limits copyright protection to works made by natural persons.

Both the district court and the appeals court agreed, ruling that U.S. copyright law protects only works of human creation.

In his filing to the Supreme Court, Thaler argues that the Copyright Act contains no requirement that an author must be human. He claims the agency’s policy adds words to the statute that Congress never enacted. The petition asserts that nonhuman authorship has already been recognized in cases involving the “work for hire” doctrine, which allows corporations and other entities to own copyrights. Thaler maintains that, as the creator and owner of the AI system, he should likewise own the rights to its output.

Thaler also challenges the Copyright Office’s use of the term “traditional elements of authorship,” which he describes as vague and inconsistently applied. He argues that by focusing on how a work is created rather than on whether it is original, the agency contradicts Supreme Court precedent. The filing points to previous cases involving photography and accidental artistic outcomes to show that works have long been protected even when they include mechanical or unintended elements.

The petition further contends that excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s purpose of promoting scientific and artistic progress. Thaler warns that the policy may discourage innovation and investment in creative technologies at a time when artificial intelligence is increasingly used in art, design, and media.

Drawing on history, Thaler compares his case to the Supreme Court’s 1884 decision in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, which recognized photographs as copyrightable art. The Court’s response to Thaler’s petition will determine whether it agrees to review the lower court’s ruling on the eligibility of AI-generated works for copyright protection.