Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
Recommended Free Tools
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware match
PC 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 & 11
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
Short answer: On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter. That left standing a lower-court ruling that an image presented as generated autonomously by an AI system, without human authorship, cannot receive U.S. copyright protection. It did not mean that every artwork made with AI is automatically uncopyrightable.
Under current U.S. law and Copyright Office guidance, the key question is what original expressive contribution a human made—not simply whether an AI tool appeared somewhere in the workflow.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What the Supreme Court actually decided
Stephen Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The petition, Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 25-449, was filed on October 9, 2025. The Court denied review on March 2, 2026, after the petition was distributed for conference on February 27.
A denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It was not a written merits ruling and did not establish a Supreme Court holding that all AI-generated art is permanently ineligible for copyright. The D.C. Circuit’s March 18, 2025 judgment remains in force in the dispute.
#1 Best Overall
That distinction matters. The accurate description is: the Supreme Court left in place a ruling denying copyright to artwork claimed to have been generated autonomously by a machine.
Read the Supreme Court docket.
What happened in the Thaler case?
Thaler sought registration for a visual work titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise. He identified an AI system called the Creativity Machine—also associated in reporting with DABUS—as the work’s creator or author. His application described the image as autonomously generated rather than as the product of a human artist’s creative authorship.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application. A federal district court upheld that decision in 2023, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed in 2025. The appellate court treated human authorship as a threshold requirement for copyright protection.
The court also rejected the idea that owning or operating the AI system automatically gave Thaler copyright in its output. A work-made-for-hire theory could not solve the problem because there first had to be a copyrightable work or copyright interest to transfer.
The case therefore involved a particularly narrow factual record: a work presented as having been created without human authorship. That is not the same as an artist using AI as one tool within a larger creative process.
Read the D.C. Circuit opinion.
Does this mean AI art can never be copyrighted?
No. Current U.S. guidance distinguishes between purely AI-generated material and work containing meaningful human expression.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →| Workflow | Likely copyright position |
|---|---|
| Prompt-only generation with no meaningful human editing | The purely AI-generated expression is likely not protected under current Copyright Office guidance. |
| Human selection, arrangement, compositing, or substantial modification of AI output | The human-authored elements may be protected, although the AI-generated portions may need to be excluded or disclaimed. |
| Human-created work incorporating an AI-generated background, object, or other component | The larger work may be protected for its human-authored narrative, layout, selection, arrangement, editing, or other original expression. |
These are general categories, not automatic results. Copyrightability is fact-sensitive and depends on the expressive contribution that can be attributed to a human creator.
The Copyright Office’s January 2025 guidance and its Part 2 report on copyrightability say that using AI as a tool does not automatically prevent protection. Human creative arrangements and sufficiently original modifications may qualify.
Are prompts enough?
According to current Copyright Office guidance, prompts alone are generally unlikely to establish sufficient human authorship. A prompt can communicate an idea or desired result without giving the user precise control over the expressive details that appear in the final image.
That is not the same as saying every prompt-only result has been definitively resolved by a universal judicial rule. It is the Copyright Office’s current analysis and registration position, based on how generative systems generally operate today. Future tools that provide more granular control, or future court decisions, could affect the analysis.
A stronger authorship claim may involve:
- a human-created sketch, character design, or composition plan;
- image-to-image work based on the creator’s own source material;
- masking, inpainting, and region-specific editing;
- selection and compositing of separate generated elements;
- manual painting, retouching, color work, or substantial repainting;
- human-created typography, layout, narrative, or sequencing; and
- creative decisions that can be identified in the final work.
The number of words in a prompt, the complexity of the prompt, or the price of an AI subscription does not by itself establish copyrightable authorship.
What artists should document
If you are building commercially valuable AI-assisted artwork, preserve evidence of the human contribution:
- original sketches, source images, and planning documents;
- editable files, layers, masks, and compositing records;
- generation history and significant iterations;
- manual painting, retouching, typography, and layout work; and
- a clear record of which parts were generated and which parts were created or changed by people.
When registering an AI-assisted work, applicants should identify included AI-generated material, claim only the human-authored portions, and disclaim material that is entirely AI-generated when required. Documentation supports a claim; it does not guarantee registration.
More information is available through the U.S. Copyright Office AI initiative.
Copyright is not the same as ownership or permission
Several legal concepts are easy to collapse into the word “ownership”:
- Copyrightability: whether copyright exists in the work or a particular component.
- Ownership: who owns an existing copyright.
- Registration: the process of recording a copyright claim; it cannot create copyright in uncopyrightable material.
- License: permission granted by an AI platform or another rights holder.
- Commercial use: whether a contract permits selling or using an output in business.
A paid AI plan may grant commercial-use permission without creating copyright in an image that lacks human authorship. Conversely, a client may own deliverables contractually while being unable to claim copyright in purely AI-generated portions.
Other rights may also matter, including trademark, privacy and publicity rights, trade-secret protection, contract restrictions, unfair-competition rules, and possible infringement if the output resembles protected material. “No copyright” does not mean “no legal restrictions.”
What the decision did not resolve
Thaler did not decide whether AI training on copyrighted works is fair use. It did not establish a universal test for image-to-image generation, iterative prompting, or different levels of human editing. It also did not resolve international copyright rules.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The analysis may change as AI interfaces offer more precise control, as courts consider new factual records, or as Congress changes the law. For now, creators should describe the rule narrowly: autonomous machine output lacks copyright under the reasoning left standing in Thaler, while human-authored expression in AI-assisted work may remain protectable.
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.
