Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 111Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
Short answer: Jason Allen has not yet won or lost his copyright dispute over Théâtre D’opéra Spatial. As of August 12, 2026, his federal case was still pending after both sides completed summary-judgment briefing.
The case asks a narrower and more difficult question than whether an artificial-intelligence system can be a copyright author: when a person uses a generative-AI tool such as Midjourney through an iterative artistic process, did that person exercise enough creative control over the final visible expression to qualify as the work’s human author?
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The dispute in one minute
Théâtre D’opéra Spatial became one of the most visible examples of AI-generated art after it won first place in the emerging-artist division of the Colorado State Fair’s 2022 fine-art competition. Jason Allen produced the digital artwork with Midjourney and applied to register it with the U.S. Copyright Office in September 2022.
The Copyright Office refused registration, and its Review Board affirmed that refusal in 2023. Allen then filed Allen v. Perlmutter, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02665, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on September 26, 2024. He is asking the court to set aside the Office’s refusal.
Popular on Amazon
- This 4-3/8" x 7" small size, 1 subject notebook has 80 double-sided college ruled sheets that fight ink bleed and are perforated for easy tear out. Perfectly sized for when you're on the go.
- Tough pockets resist tears and hold loose sheets and notes. Durable plastic water-resistant front cover helps protect your notes and our Spiral Lock wire helps prevent snags on clothes and backpacks.
- All the benefits of our larger notebooks in a smaller, easy to carry size. Sheets measure 4-3/8" x 7 when torn out.
- Available in Seaglass Green
- LASTS ALL YEAR. GUARANTEED!*
Allen says Midjourney was a tool in a larger creative process. His complaint describes hundreds of prompts and repeated artistic decisions. The government responds that the prompts supplied broad instructions and ideas, while Midjourney—not Allen—generated the expressive visual details in the disputed image.
The court’s eventual ruling could help define the line between an AI-assisted artwork containing protectable human expression and an AI-generated output whose visible expression is not protected by copyright.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →What is the current status of Allen’s case?
The latest located reporting and filings show that the case had reached the summary-judgment stage, but the court had not issued an identified merits decision by August 12, 2026.
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| August 29, 2022 | Théâtre D’opéra Spatial won a prize in the Colorado State Fair’s emerging-artist digital-art category, according to contemporary reporting and case materials. |
| September 2022 | Allen applied to register the artwork with the Copyright Office. |
| 2023 | The Copyright Office Review Board affirmed the refusal to register the work. The Board’s index identifies the claim as involving human authorship and a two-dimensional artwork, but records the refusal as affirmed. |
| September 26, 2024 | Allen filed Allen v. Perlmutter in the District of Colorado. |
| October 7, 2024 | Ars Technica reported on Allen’s continuing challenge. |
| January 29, 2025 | The Copyright Office released Part 2 of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence, setting out its position on human contributions to AI-assisted works. |
| January 30, 2025 | The Office recorded the registration decision for A Single Piece of American Cheese, protecting a human-authored selection, coordination, and arrangement while excluding the AI-generated image components. |
| March 18, 2025 | The D.C. Circuit affirmed the refusal in Thaler v. Perlmutter. |
| August 2025 | Allen filed his opening motion for summary judgment. |
| January 16, 2026 | The Copyright Office filed its response and cross-motion for summary judgment. |
| February 27, 2026 | Allen filed his reply and opposition to the government’s cross-motion. |
| March 2, 2026 | The Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter. |
| August 12, 2026 | The researched record still showed Allen’s case as pending, with no located final merits ruling. |
Calling the dispute an appeal is understandable, but Allen’s current challenge is a civil action in federal district court—not a Supreme Court ruling on AI art generally and not an already-decided appellate victory.
Why the Copyright Office refused registration
Copyright protects human-authored expression. The Office does not treat the use of an AI tool as an automatic disqualifier, but it asks what the tool did, how it operated, and what creative contribution the human actually made to the final work.
The Office’s January 2025 Part 2 report describes several kinds of human contribution that may remain protectable:
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
- Perceptible human-authored material: expression created by a person and included in the finished work.
- Creative selection or arrangement: a human’s original choice and organization of material, even when some underlying components were generated by AI.
- Creative modifications: human-authored changes made after generation that are sufficiently original and visible in the final work.
By contrast, purely AI-generated material, or material over which the person did not exercise sufficient control, is not protected merely because a human initiated the process or owned the computer used to generate it.
The Office’s position is not that every work made with AI must be rejected. Its position is that copyrightability must be assessed according to the actual human contribution and the operation of the particular AI tool. The report also says that, with generally available technology considered by the Office, prompts alone ordinarily do not give a user sufficient control over the final expressive output.
Also popular on Amazon
- A classroom classic: this 6-pack of 1-subject spiral notebooks helps you identify your subjects at a glance with color-coding efficiency; color assortment may vary
- The right ruling: these 8" x 10-1/2", college-ruled notebooks fit more writing per page than wide-ruled sheets; each notebook provides 70 double-sided sheets with red margin lines
- Perect perforation: Dependable micro-perforated sheets retain your must-have notes but still detach cleanly when you’re ready to revise
- Glide from page to page: Your favorite gel or ballpoint pens will move effortlessly across these smooth pages for A+ notes with minimal ink bleeding or show-through
- 3-Hold punched: Every notebook comes 3-hole punched to fit a standard binder; take along one notebook or several to save extra trips to the locker
That wording matters. It does not say prompts are never relevant. Prompting may be evidence of a larger creative process, and the surrounding circumstances still matter. The Office’s argument is that a prompt usually describes an intended subject, idea, mood, style, or set of instructions without controlling the specific visual expression that the model ultimately produces.
Allen’s theory: Midjourney was an artistic tool, not the author
Allen’s complaint presents his use of Midjourney as an iterative creative process. He says he made extensive artistic decisions and used hundreds of prompts to direct the work toward the result he wanted. His broader theory is that generative AI should be treated as a tool or medium, much as artists use cameras, editing software, or other technologies to create visual works.
Under that theory, the important question is not whether Allen wrote Midjourney’s software, owned the model, or can claim copyright in every prompt. Nor is the question necessarily whether an individual prompt is independently copyrightable. The question is whether Allen’s human choices sufficiently controlled or contributed to the expressive elements that viewers can see in Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.
Allen’s summary-judgment filings characterize his involvement as extensive creative control. If a court accepts that characterization as legally sufficient, the decision could recognize a stronger role for sustained human direction in some generative-AI workflows.
The government’s response: ideas and instructions are not the generated expression
The Copyright Office’s January 2026 summary-judgment brief disputes that Allen’s prompting made him the author of the image. According to the government’s argument, the prompts described broad matters such as the subject, scene, genre, tone, colors, composition, and style. Those inputs may communicate ideas or instructions, but they do not necessarily determine the particular expressive details Midjourney generated.
This is the central fault line in the case:
| Part of the process | The legal question |
|---|---|
| Human concept or artistic goal | Is the person contributing an idea only, or original expression that appears in the finished work? |
| Prompting | Does the prompt control the specific expressive result, or does it leave the model to make the important visual decisions? |
| Generation | Which entity supplied the final image’s expressive details—the human or the AI system? |
| Selection | Did the human make creative choices among multiple outputs, and is that selection or arrangement itself protectable? |
| Post-generation editing | Did the person add, alter, or combine human-authored expression in a way that is perceptible in the final work? |
Allen’s position emphasizes the entire process. The government’s position focuses more directly on who determined the expression visible in the image that Allen sought to register.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Allen is not the same as Stephen Thaler
The Supreme Court’s denial of review in Thaler v. Perlmutter did not establish that all AI-assisted art is uncopyrightable.
Thaler involved an image that Stephen Thaler identified as having been generated by his AI system without a direct, traditional human authorial contribution. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the refusal to register that work, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on March 2, 2026.
Also popular on Amazon
- Perfectly sized for when you're on the go, this small 2 subject notebook has 80 double-sided college ruled sheets that fight ink bleed and are perforated for easy tear out
- Tough pockets help prevent tears and hold 6" x 9-1/2" loose sheets and notes. Durable plastic water-resistant front cover helps protect your notes and our Spiral Lock wire helps prevent snags on clothes and backpacks.
- All the benefits of our larger notebooks in a smaller, easy to carry size. Sheets measure 6" x 9-1/2" when torn out.
- Made with SFI certified paper. Notebook is recyclable – just remove the reinforcement tape on the pocket and recycle the rest! Available in Blue (Color May Vary)
- LASTS ALL YEAR. GUARANTEED!*
At minimum, Thaler confirms that an AI system cannot be treated as the copyright author of a work created without the human authorship required by U.S. copyright law. But it does not resolve Allen’s different question: how much human creative control is enough when a person uses generative AI as part of an artistic process?
The Copyright Office itself highlighted this distinction when opposing Supreme Court review in Thaler. Its filing emphasized that Thaler had disclaimed the kind of human creative contribution that the Office has accepted in some AI-assisted works. That distinction is why the Supreme Court’s decision should not be reported as a ruling that every image made with AI lacks copyright protection.
What A Single Piece of American Cheese does—and does not—show
The Copyright Office’s treatment of A Single Piece of American Cheese provides a concrete example of limited protection for an AI-assisted project. The official record identifies Invoke AI, Inc. as the registrant and says the claim covers the selection, coordination, and arrangement of material generated by artificial intelligence.
The registration expressly excludes the two-dimensional artwork and the AI-generated image components. In other words, the Office did not register the underlying AI-generated image as though it had been created entirely by a human artist. It registered the human-authored arrangement of material.
This is a layered approach to copyright:
- The underlying generated image may be outside the scope of protection.
- A human-authored arrangement, compilation, or selection may be protected if it reflects sufficient original creativity.
- Human-created or human-modified elements may receive protection separately from unprotected AI-generated material.
The example supports the Office’s claim that AI use is not an automatic bar to every form of copyright protection. It does not establish that a standalone Midjourney output such as Théâtre D’opéra Spatial is copyrightable, and it does not predict how the Colorado district court will rule.
What the case could clarify for artists
Allen’s lawsuit places an unusually direct test before a court: where should the law draw the boundary between a human-directed creative process and machine-generated expression? A ruling could affect how artists, photographers, designers, and other creators think about AI-assisted workflows, even though the decision would arise from one particular image, tool, and factual record.
Among the issues the case could help clarify are:
- How much control is enough? The court may need to assess whether extensive iterative prompting can amount to authorship when the model supplies the visible details of the final image.
- What kind of control matters? Quantity alone may not answer the question. Hundreds of prompts could document persistence and direction, but the legal issue is whether those directions controlled the expressive result.
- How should selection be treated? Choosing one output from many may be creative, but protection may attach to the selection or arrangement rather than automatically extending to every chosen image.
- What counts as a protectable modification? Human editing, painting, compositing, or other changes may matter when those contributions are original and perceptible in the finished work.
- How should registration applications describe mixed-authorship works? The dispute may encourage more precise identification of human-authored portions and exclusion of material generated by AI.
These are implications of the issues presented in the complaint, the government’s briefing, and the Copyright Office’s report—not holdings already issued by the court.
A practical framework for creators using generative AI
No workflow guarantees copyright protection, and the following is not legal advice. It is a way to separate the issues raised by the Office’s current framework from the common assumption that any human involvement automatically makes an AI output human-authored.
Also popular on Amazon
- LASTS ALL YEAR. GUARANTEED! Guarantee is valid for one year from purchase or delivery date, whichever is longer. Does not cover misuse.
- Scan, study and organize your notes with the Five Star Study App. Create instant flashcards and sync your notes to Google Drive to access them anywhere from any device.
- This 5 subject notebook has 200 double-sided, college ruled sheets that fight ink bleed and are perforated for easy tear out. Sheets measure 8-1/2" x 11" when torn out.
- Tough pockets help prevent tears and hold 8-1/2" x 11" loose sheets. Durable plastic front cover is water-resistant to help protect your notes and our Spiral Lock wire helps prevent snags on clothes and backpacks.
- Made with SFI certified paper. Notebook is recyclable – just remove the reinforcement tape on the pocket and recycle the rest! Available in Pacific Blue.
1. Separate the idea from the expression
Record the concept you contributed, but do not assume that a concept, subject, mood, or style is the same as the detailed visual expression in the final image. This is especially important where the model independently determines faces, textures, lighting, anatomy, spatial relationships, or other visible details.
2. Preserve the process
Keep prompt histories, output versions, selections, revisions, and dates. Allen’s case shows why a creator may need to explain not simply that AI was used, but how the work developed and where human decisions entered the process.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
3. Identify human-authored additions
Save layered files and distinguish your own drawing, painting, retouching, compositing, typography, or other edits from the generated material. The relevant question is whether those human contributions are original, visible, and substantial enough to claim—not merely whether they exist somewhere in the working file.
4. Treat selection and arrangement as a separate layer
If the final project combines multiple generated elements, the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement may be a more defensible claim than ownership of each underlying generated component. The A Single Piece of American Cheese registration illustrates this distinction.
5. Describe the claim accurately
Creators should avoid presenting an entire mixed-origin image as human-authored if significant expressive portions were generated by AI. The Office’s approach allows human contributions to be considered while excluding material that does not meet the human-authorship standard.
6. Do not treat prompt volume as a legal formula
Allen’s account involves hundreds of prompts, but the Office’s position is not that a particular number of prompts automatically succeeds or fails. The substance of the human control and the expressive result matter more than a raw prompt count.
For readers who want the doctrine behind the dispute rather than a prediction about its outcome, a copyright law book covering human authorship, registration, and AI-assisted works can provide useful background. It is educational context, not legal advice, and no book can determine the result of Allen’s pending case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this case does not mean
- It does not mean Allen has already lost. The Copyright Office refused registration, but his federal challenge remained undecided in the latest located record.
- It does not mean Allen has already won. Filing a complaint and completing summary-judgment briefing do not establish that his work qualifies for registration.
- It does not mean the Supreme Court rejected all AI-assisted art. The Court denied review in a different case involving an assertedly autonomous AI-created work.
- It does not mean prompts are irrelevant. Prompts may be evidence of the creative process; the Office’s position is that prompts alone ordinarily do not provide sufficient control over the final output with current generally available technology.
- It does not mean the cheese registration covers an AI-generated picture. Its official record excludes the underlying two-dimensional artwork and AI-generated image components.
Why painters and visual artists should pay attention
For painters and other visual artists, the case is not only about whether a Midjourney image can receive a registration. It concerns how copyright may treat a work assembled from human intention, machine output, selection, and revision.
Also popular on Amazon
- BEST-SELLING HARDCOVER JOURNAL: This classic 5.6" x 8" vegan leather journal features a durable and water-resistant cover, 160 college ruled lined pages, inner expandable pocket, sticker labels, ribbon bookmark & elastic closure band.
- PREMIUM PAPER: Made with high-quality, 100 gsm acid-free paper in light ivory color, our journal paper is thicker than average notebooks & note pads, so you can confidently use most pens, pencils, and markers without ghosting and bleed-through.
- LAY FLAT DESIGN FOR WRITING EASE: Our thread-bound, college ruled notebook is designed to lay flat, making it easier to write for both right and left-handed users. It’s the perfect notebook for journaling, note taking and planning.
- INNER POCKET: Includes an expandable inner storage pocket to store appointment cards, notes, receipts, and more. Personalize your journal cover & spine with the sheet of sticker labels included.
- VERSATILE LINED NOTEBOOK: Ideal for journaling, note-taking, planning, or creative writing. Whether you're making a to-do list, capturing ideas, or writing notes, this journal makes a perfect notebook for school, work, or home office.
A court ruling could make it easier—or harder—to distinguish a human artist’s protectable contribution from an AI system’s unprotected output. It could also influence how creators keep records, how they describe mixed-origin works, and how disputes over copying are evaluated. Until the court rules, however, the safest conclusion is limited: human contributions can matter, but the use of an AI tool does not by itself make the resulting image human-authored.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Jason Allen won or lost his AI-art copyright lawsuit?
Neither. As of August 12, 2026, Allen v. Perlmutter was still pending after the parties completed summary-judgment briefing. The Copyright Office had refused registration and its Review Board had affirmed that refusal, but the federal court had not issued an identified merits ruling.
Did the Supreme Court rule that all AI-generated art is uncopyrightable?
No. The Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter on March 2, 2026. That case involved an image assertedly generated by an AI system without the type of direct human authorial contribution at issue in Allen’s case. The denial did not decide the copyrightability of all AI-assisted artwork.
Can an artwork made with artificial intelligence receive copyright protection?
Potentially, but not automatically. The Copyright Office says AI assistance does not by itself defeat protection. Human-authored expression, creative selection or arrangement, and sufficiently original human modifications may be protectable, while purely AI-generated material or material lacking sufficient human control is not.
Are prompts enough to copyright a Midjourney image?
The Copyright Office’s current position is that prompts alone ordinarily do not provide sufficient control over the final expressive output produced by generally available AI technology. Prompts may still be relevant evidence of the overall process, especially when combined with human-authored material, selection, editing, or arrangement.
What did the Copyright Office protect in A Single Piece of American Cheese?
The registration protected the selection, coordination, and arrangement of AI-generated material. It expressly excluded the two-dimensional artwork and AI-generated image components, so it was not a registration of the underlying generated image itself.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Allen’s case remains an unresolved test of human creative control in generative-AI art. The existing record supports a distinction between unprotected AI-generated expression and protectable human-authored selection, arrangement, or modification—but it does not yet answer whether extensive Midjourney prompting made Allen the author of Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.
Quick Recap
