Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Outbyte Driver Updater · freeRandom freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.
Find the Right Drivers →ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the rejection of copyright protection for an image claimed to have been autonomously generated by an AI system. That is a major defeat for machine-only authorship—but it is not a ban on AI-assisted art.
On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Stephen Thaler’s petition in Thaler v. Perlmutter. That decision leaves standing the lower courts’ rejection of copyright protection for A Recent Entrance to Paradise, an image Thaler said was autonomously generated by his AI system.
That is a serious setback for anyone arguing that a machine can be the sole author of a copyrighted artwork. But it is not a Supreme Court ruling that bans AI art, makes every AI-assisted image uncopyrightable, or settles the separate legal battles over AI training data.
What the Supreme Court actually did
The Court denied certiorari in case No. 25-449: Thaler, Stephen v. Perlmutter, Shira, et al. A denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court declined to review the lower-court decision. It leaves that judgment in place, but it is not ordinarily a written opinion deciding the merits of the dispute.
#1 Best Overall
That procedural distinction matters. The Supreme Court did not issue an opinion saying “AI art is illegal” or announcing a universal rule for every image made with an AI tool. It simply declined to reopen this particular dispute, in which the claimed author was a non-human machine and the artwork was presented as autonomously generated.
The practical result is still important: the adverse lower-court ruling remains the governing outcome in the case, and the argument that an AI system itself can be the sole author of a copyrightable artwork has not gained Supreme Court support.
The case began with one image and one unusual authorship claim
Stephen Thaler sought to register A Recent Entrance to Paradise with the U.S. Copyright Office. In the application, he identified an AI system rather than a human being as the work’s author. Thaler’s position was that the image had been generated autonomously by the machine.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallThe Copyright Office refused registration. Thaler challenged that refusal in court, but both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed that the work could not receive copyright protection on the theory presented.
In its opinion issued on March 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit framed the central question as whether a non-human machine can be an “author” under the Copyright Act of 1976. The court answered that question against machine authorship on the facts before it. Thaler then asked the Supreme Court to review the case. On March 2, 2026, the Court declined.
The real dividing line: machine-only expression versus human contribution
The most important lesson for painters, illustrators, photographers, and other creators is not “never use AI.” It is the difference between purely AI-generated expression and a work in which a human determines enough of the expressive result.
The U.S. Copyright Office’s current analysis focuses on who determined the expressive elements that appear in the work. Under that framework, a work may contain AI-generated material and still include copyrightable human-authored elements. Examples can include:
- Human-authored material that remains perceptible in the final work: for example, an original painting, drawing, photograph, written passage, or other creative contribution incorporated into the finished piece.
- Creative selection or arrangement: choosing and organizing elements in an original composition may contribute protectable human authorship, even if some individual elements were generated by a machine.
- Human modification: substantial, creative changes made after generation can matter when they determine expressive details in the final work.
- A larger human-authored work: AI-generated material may appear as one component of a broader work whose text, design, structure, or other elements were created by a person.
These are not automatic safe harbors. Copyrightability remains fact dependent, and a creator must still satisfy the ordinary requirements of originality and human authorship for the elements being claimed.
Why a prompt alone may not be enough
A person can make many creative decisions before entering a prompt. But the Copyright Office’s analysis generally distinguishes between communicating an idea or desired result and actually determining the final expressive details.
If a creator writes a prompt, receives an unpredictable image, selects one result, and makes no meaningful expressive changes, the prompt may not provide enough human control over the final image to support a copyright claim in that image’s machine-determined expression.
That does not mean prompts are legally irrelevant in every imaginable dispute. It means that, for copyrightability, the key question is whether the human contribution reaches the expressive details of the work—not simply whether a human initiated the generation process.
By contrast, a creator who supplies original visual material, makes detailed creative decisions, directs a layered process, performs substantial edits, combines outputs into a new composition, or integrates the result with independently authored work may have a stronger argument for protection in the human-authored portions. The strength of that argument depends on the actual workflow and the final work, not on the label “AI-assisted.”
Rank #3
What this means for painters using AI tools
For a painter, the safest practical approach is to think in terms of contribution and control, not whether AI appeared somewhere in the process.
If you use AI for reference or ideation
Using an AI image as a reference, mood board, compositional starting point, or source of ideas does not automatically determine the copyright status of the painting you create. The relevant analysis turns on the expressive choices present in your finished painting and the extent to which you independently created them.
Keep the evidence of that process: sketches, studies, photographs, source material, time-lapse files, layered working files, and dated revisions. Those records do not guarantee registration, but they can help show what you created and how the final work developed.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsIf you use AI-generated elements in a finished work
Identify which parts came from the system and which parts came from you. If you paint over an AI-generated base, substantially alter it, combine it with your own artwork, or place it within an original composition, preserve the intermediate stages and describe the human-authored portions accurately.
The existence of extensive editing is not, by itself, decisive. The edits should be evaluated by their creative character and by what expression they contribute to the final result.
If the image is generated with little or no human intervention
Be cautious about claiming exclusive copyright in the image’s machine-generated expression. A workflow in which the system determines the image and the human merely accepts the output is much closer to the circumstances rejected in Thaler than a workflow involving substantial human authorship.
A practical recordkeeping checklist
Artists who use generative tools should consider retaining:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →- Original sketches, photographs, scans, or paintings supplied to the process.
- Prompts and settings, with dates where available.
- Generated versions, rejected outputs, and the reasons for selecting particular elements.
- Layered files and revision histories showing manual changes.
- Notes identifying which portions were painted, written, arranged, or edited by a human.
- Evidence of independently authored text, illustrations, textures, or compositional elements included in the final work.
- The final version submitted for publication, sale, licensing, or registration.
Documentation is evidence, not a substitute for authorship. A well-organized folder cannot turn machine-generated expression into human-authored expression. It can, however, help accurately separate the parts of a mixed work and demonstrate the creative decisions that actually shaped it.
The decision does not resolve AI training lawsuits
Thaler v. Perlmutter concerns the copyright eligibility of an output claimed to have been autonomously created by a machine. It does not decide whether an AI company infringed artists’ copyrights by using protected works to train a generative system.
It also does not resolve whether particular training practices are protected by fair use. Those questions involve different conduct, different evidence, and potentially different legal doctrines. The Copyright Office treats output copyrightability and generative-AI training as separate parts of its broader AI initiative.
Other issues likewise remain outside this decision, including whether an output is substantially similar to a particular artwork, whether a system improperly imitates an artist’s style, whether a person’s name or likeness was used without permission, whether trademark rights are implicated, and what contracts or platform terms govern a creator’s use of an AI service.
Why “crushing blow” is both fair and misleading
The phrase is fair if it refers narrowly to the theory that an AI system can be the sole author of a copyrighted artwork. Thaler pursued that theory, lost in the lower courts, and could not persuade the Supreme Court to take up the case. For that position, the result is plainly unfavorable.
The phrase becomes misleading when it is expanded to mean that all AI-assisted art has lost copyright protection. The Court did not decide that. The Copyright Office’s framework continues to recognize that human-authored material can exist within an AI-assisted work and that creative human selection, arrangement, and modification may be protectable.
The better summary is this: the Supreme Court refused to reopen the question of whether a machine can be the sole author of the artwork in this case, leaving human authorship as the practical gatekeeper for copyright protection.
What artists should do next
- Describe your process honestly. Do not call a fully machine-generated image “hand-painted” or imply that you authored details the system determined.
- Separate human and machine contributions. This is especially important when registering, licensing, selling, or explaining a mixed work.
- Preserve working materials. Keep originals, layers, revisions, source files, and notes about your creative decisions.
- Claim only what you created. A copyright claim may protect human-authored portions without automatically covering every machine-generated element in the same file.
- Check more than copyright. Review platform terms, permissions for source material, privacy and publicity concerns, trademark issues, and possible infringement risks separately.
- Get advice for valuable or disputed work. The legal outcome can turn on the details of the workflow, the registration application, and the intended use of the image.
The Supreme Court’s order does not end the debate over AI and art. It does make one boundary harder to ignore: copyright remains centered on human authorship, and calling a machine the author is not a reliable path to protection.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court ban AI-generated art?
No. The Supreme Court denied review of a case involving an image claimed to have been autonomously generated by an AI system. It did not issue a ruling that makes every AI-assisted image uncopyrightable.
What was Thaler v. Perlmutter about?
The case involved Stephen Thaler’s attempt to register A Recent Entrance to Paradise while identifying an AI system—not a human—as the author. The lower courts rejected that machine-only authorship theory, and the Supreme Court declined to review the result.
Can an AI-assisted painting still be copyrighted?
The Copyright Office’s framework distinguishes between expressive elements determined by a human and those determined by a machine. Human-authored material, creative selection or arrangement, and meaningful human modification may support protection in the relevant portions of a mixed work, but the result is fact dependent.
Is writing a prompt enough to obtain copyright?
Not necessarily. A prompt can communicate an idea without giving the creator sufficient control over the final expressive details. A creator who merely prompts, selects an unpredictable output, and makes no meaningful creative changes may face a weaker copyright claim than someone who contributes original material, makes creative edits, or builds an original composition.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Did the decision settle AI training-data lawsuits?
No. Thaler v. Perlmutter did not decide whether using copyrighted works to train AI systems is infringement or fair use. Those are separate legal questions, as are disputes involving style imitation, substantial similarity, names and likenesses, trademarks, and platform contracts.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the rejection of copyright for an image claimed to have been autonomously generated by AI. The decision does not ban AI-assisted art. It reinforces the practical importance of identifiable human expression—through original inputs, creative selection or arrangement, meaningful modification, and other human-authored elements.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
