The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that artificial intellectual creation is not protected by copyright.

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: How Stephen Thaler’s Case Became an International Precedent

In recent years, American scientist-practitioner Stephen Thaler has become a prominent figure in the debate over who can claim copyright and patents when a work is created by artificial intelligence. His DABUS system generated original images and inventions, but the owner—an individual human—remains contested.

1. The Key Case of “Recent Entry into Paradise”
- In 2018, Thaler attempted to register copyright for “Recent Entry into Paradise,” a vivid depiction of railway tracks leading into a portal.
- The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2022, arguing that only a living person can be an owner.
- In 2023, a Washington court upheld the denial; in 2025, a higher appellate court affirmed the lower decision.
- Thaler appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed his appeal.

> “Thaler believes the refusal harmed the AI industry and creative professions at a critical developmental moment,” he says himself.

2. What the Office Says About the “Author”
The office maintains that the term “author” applies only to a living person. A machine, even if it creates a work without human intervention, cannot be recognized as an author under U.S. law.

3. Other Attempts by Thaler
- Patent Applications: Thaler also filed patents for inventions created by DABUS, but they were rejected in the United States.
- International Success: In Australia, a court recognized him as an author and upheld rights to several inventions.

4. Implications for the Industry
The U.S. ruling raises questions about how to regulate intellectual property in the AI era. While American legislation does not currently allow registration of rights for machines, the international precedent in Australia could serve as a guide for future reforms.

In short:

Stephen Thaler is trying to prove that artificial intelligence can be an author and patent holder. In the U.S., his attempts were rejected by the Supreme Court, but in Australia, a court recognized him as the rightful owner of certain inventions. This case raises important questions about the future of copyright in the AI world.