The United States government has formally told the Supreme Court that AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection under current law — a position that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence, creativity, and intellectual property rights in America. In a strongly worded amicus brief filed January 27, 2026, the Solicitor General’s office argued that human authorship remains the indispensable requirement for copyright eligibility, and that outputs produced by current generative AI systems lack the necessary human creative control.
The filing comes in the closely watched case Thaler v. Perlmutter (docket 24-558), which asks the Supreme Court to decide whether an AI system can be considered an “author” under the Copyright Act of 1976. The case originated when Stephen Thaler sought to register an image created entirely by his AI program “DABUS.” The Copyright Office refused registration in 2023, a decision upheld by both the district court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Thaler then petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
The government’s brief, representing the views of the Copyright Office, the Justice Department, and multiple federal agencies, is blunt:
“The Copyright Act requires human authorship. Machines and software do not have the capacity for originality, intent, or creative choices that the law demands. AI-generated outputs, no matter how impressive, are not copyrightable absent sufficient human creative contribution.”
The brief acknowledges that AI tools can assist human creators — and those human-involved works remain fully protectable — but insists that purely AI-generated content falls outside the scope of copyright. It warns that recognizing AI authorship would flood the system with millions of new claims, dilute the incentive structure of copyright law, and create enforcement nightmares.
Key excerpts from the brief include:
- “The constitutional purpose of copyright — to promote the progress of science and useful arts — is served by incentivizing human creators, not machines.”
- “Current generative AI systems operate through statistical pattern-matching, not volitional creative expression.”
- Allowing AI copyright “would undermine the incentive for human authorship that lies at the heart of the Copyright Clause.”
The position aligns with the Copyright Office’s long-standing guidance (updated March 2023 and reaffirmed in 2025) and echoes rulings in other jurisdictions, including the UK and EU, which have similarly rejected AI-only authorship.
Public and industry reaction has been swift and polarized:
- Creators’ unions and traditional artists welcomed the stance as protecting human livelihoods.
- AI developers and tech advocacy groups criticized it as stifling innovation and ignoring the collaborative nature of modern creation.
- Legal scholars are split: some call the brief a logical application of existing law, while others argue it fails to grapple with the reality of AI as a creative partner.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari, but the government’s brief significantly raises the stakes. If the Court declines review, the lower-court rulings stand, cementing the no-copyright-for-pure-AI rule for the foreseeable future. If it takes the case, the outcome could redefine intellectual property law in the AI era.
For everyday Americans — from freelance artists to content creators to tech entrepreneurs — the stakes are high. A ruling against AI copyright could push companies to emphasize human involvement in workflows, while a reversal might open the floodgates to mass registration of AI outputs, potentially overwhelming the Copyright Office and reshaping licensing markets.
The brief reinforces that in 2026, the law still draws a firm line: copyright rewards human creativity, not machine computation.