Supreme Court Upholds AI Art Can't Be Copyrighted
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a lower court's ruling, cementing that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection without human authorship. The decision confirms that a human creator is required, a major development with significant implications for brands using AI for campaigns, virtual try-ons, and marketing content.
The legal battle centered on computer scientist Stephen Thaler and his AI system, the "Creativity Machine." Thaler sought to copyright a piece of art titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which he claimed was generated autonomously by the AI. He listed the AI as the author and himself as the owner of the work, a distinction that became central to the case. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application in 2019, a decision that was upheld by a federal district court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts affirmed that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement" for copyright protection under U.S. law. The Supreme Court's denial to review the case on March 2, 2026, solidifies this precedent. This ruling arrives as luxury and fashion brands are increasingly integrating AI. Spanish retailer Mango developed a 2024 campaign for its teen line using AI to place real garments on virtual models, while Levi's partnered with Lalaland.ai to create AI-generated models for e-commerce photos to increase diversity. LVMH has even established an internal "AI Factory" to support brands like Dior and Louis Vuitton in creating AI-assisted content. While purely AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted, the U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that works created with AI assistance can be, contingent on the level of human creative input. An artist can claim copyright for their own contributions, such as the creative "selection, coordination, and arrangement" of AI-generated elements. This makes documenting the human role in any AI-assisted creative process a critical step for brand protection. The legal frontier is now shifting to what constitutes sufficient human involvement. The Copyright Office will assess this on a case-by-case basis, requiring applicants to disclose the use of AI in their work. This leaves creative directors to navigate a landscape where AI can be a powerful tool, but only human-led creativity can be owned and protected.
