Supreme Court Says "No" to AI Copyright. What Do Students Say?
- 14 hours ago
- 3 min read
By Max Pearson
On March 2nd, 2026, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Steven Thaler, a computer scientist seeking copyright for his AI generated work "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." The Court's refusal cemented a long-upheld tenet that copyrighted works must be made by a human. This decision could prove monumental, both for those interested in AI development and for human artists who seek to protect their work.
Thaler was originally denied copyright for "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," a 2012 generation by his AI model DABUS, in 2018. His legal team then appealed the case to a federal judge in Washington, who upheld the copyright office's decision, writing that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement of copyright." Thaler's team continued to appeal the case, but when the Supreme Court declined to hear it, the decision reverted to that of the lower courts. In the eyes of the law, a work fully generated with AI, involving no human input, cannot presently be copyrighted.
What does this mean? When a work is copyrighted, the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to copy it, sell it, perform it, or display it. Because AI models like DABUS need to "train" off data sets to generate images, companies may scrape art-sharing platforms like Twitter/X, Reddit, or Tumblr to find human-made works to feed their AI. The AI then learns to generate images in a similar style to the artist it fed from.
Because of this process, CCNY junior Marco Vallerugo opposes AI in creative spaces. "The artist that the learning module takes from doesn't [get] credit," they say, "They're not compensated." Vallerguo's statements echo the concerns of many human artists who believe that the rise of AI poses a threat to their industries. When a company chooses to AI-generate a logo, tagline, website, or advertisement, the very artists that the AI took from lose out on income and exposure. Should AI works be allowed copyright, a company could legally protect assets created entirely without human input, bypassing the need for artists entirely.
With this in mind, CCNY art majors Vallerugo and Janilet Munez agree with the Court's decision. Vallerugo, a junior majoring in Art with a photography focus, states, "I don't think it should be something that you should be able to copyright as your own, especially considering you don't pay for it either." Munez, who minors in Studio Art, says, "I agree with that [decision]." Munez believes that AI art "shouldn't be a thing, regardless (...) 'cause you're technically not creating it, that technology is." In regards to AI works being ineligible for copyright protections, and therefore able to be sold or reproduced by anybody, she says, "I'm okay with everyone stealing each other's things. It's not yours to begin with, and it isn't something that should be sold."
Still, the answers to more specific questions regarding works involving partial AI involvement, proving the human/AI contribution balance, and AI plagiarism in data sets still lack legal answers. Aaron Moss, lawyer and owner of website Copyright Lately, warns that the case isn't all cut and dry. He writes, "Stephen Thaler deliberately set up the narrowest possible dispute: he listed his AI system as the sole author, disclaimed any human creative contribution, and asked for copyright protection anyway. No court was ever going to say yes to that. (...) What comes next is harder, messier, and more consequential."
How AI will impact the creative industry in following years remains to be seen. In the meantime, CCNY students are hopeful that the Supreme Court’s decision will prove monumental in protecting their future careers.
Max Pearson is a City College transfer student majoring in education. Her dream is to be an elementary school teacher and a published novelist. When not writing, she can be found embroidering flowers on her sweaters, exploring NYC, or nerding out about historical medicine to anyone who will listen.
Comments