Proponents of generic AI say the technology has greatly lowered the barriers to entry into the art world, allowing practically anyone with Internet access to dream up competently executed landscapes, portraits, sketches and comics – without any talent required.
Critics say this is the lowest common denominator of human expression, outsourcing to bloated algorithms that feast on copyrighted material while exploiting human artists who have yet to receive fair remuneration for putting their life’s work into an AI wood chipper.
The raging debate has turned into a protracted legal battle, with some attempting to maintain the validity of AI-generated art by arguing that it is copyrightable – efforts that have recently faced a major hurdle in the form of a Supreme Court decision.
In 2022, shortly before text-to-image generative AI tools like MidJourney became mainstream, the US Copyright Office rejected computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s request to copyright his AI-generated image, titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” After years of back-and-forth, which included an appeal, a US district court judge ruled that the masterpiece could not be protected because it had no human creator, and eventually a confirmation Following the said decision in 2025, the case eventually reached the US Supreme Court.
And now, like reuters reportsThe country’s highest court has refused to hear the ongoing dispute, dealing a blow to those who argue that AI-generated art should be eligible for copyright like human-made works.
This is a particularly thorny situation, given that AI companies have been embroiled in numerous lawsuits over alleged infringement of their own copyrights.
For example, image generator MidJourney was sued by Warner Bros. Discovery last year. Artists also filed a lawsuit against Google in 2024 after they discovered that their work was trashed by the company’s AI. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and text-to-video generating app, Sora, can also be used to easily generate images and videos of copyrighted characters.
This hasn’t stopped many AI enthusiasts, including Thaler, from seeking copyright for their AI-generated work. Some of them have even complained that their messages are being stolen by other “artists”.
The Trump Administration explained, “Although the Copyright Act does not define the term ‘author,’ several provisions of the Act make clear that the term refers to a human being rather than a machine.” reuters In a statement.
In addition to copyrighting his artwork, Thaler also applied for patents in 2018 for a food container and search and rescue beacon, arguing that he was not the inventor but that an AI machine, called DABUS, came up with them.
The US Patent and Trademark Office shut them down, and the Supreme Court also refused to hear their argument. reuters.
More on AI art: Furious AI users say their signals are being stolen
