The Secret Weapon Against AI Dominance; The Atlantic, April 30, 2026

Jacob Noti-Victor and Xiyin Tang, The Atlantic; The Secret Weapon Against AI Dominance

"More than 90 lawsuits have been filed by creators against AI companies for copyright infringement. Authors, musicians, visual artists, and news publishers have all accused firms such as OpenAI, Meta, and Anthropic of using their copyrighted works to train AI models without permission. (The Atlantic is involved in one such lawsuit, against the AI firm Cohere.) These cases are frequently framed as the defining fight over the future of creative labor and the entertainment industry as a whole. As one of these lawsuits put it, artists are seeking to end “infringement of their rights before their professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely by their hard work.”

But the future of creative labor will more likely be decided through a different question within copyright law, one that has received far less attention: To what extent should AI-generated works receive copyright protection at all? In a 2024 case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that a work generated autonomously by an AI system cannot be protected by copyright, because copyright requires a human “author.” The Supreme Court declined to review that decision in March. With the lower-court decision left in place, the question now becomes how much AI content can be incorporated into a work before it becomes mostly or totally uncopyrightable; courts have not yet weighed in on this but may soon.

The Thaler decision (and any future decisions that refine it) will have major economic consequences for the creative industries and the workers they employ."

Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content; Northern Public Radio, March 13, 2026

David Gunkel, Northern Public Radio; Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content

"What the courts actually decided is that neither the AI system nor the human who uses it counts as the author of the resulting work. Simply prompting ChatGPT or Claude to produce something isn’t considered the kind of creative activity that copyright law recognizes as authorship. And that creates an unexpected result. If neither the AI nor the human user is the author, then the work has no author at all. In effect, AI-generated images, music, and text become “orphan works”—creations that belong to no one. And that means that anyone can use them."

Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works; IP Watchdog, November 3, 2025

ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works

"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"

Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement; The National Law Review, April 9, 2025

Jonathan D. Reichman of Hunton Andrews Kurth   - Publications , The National Law Review; Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement

"In mid-March, a federal appeals court affirmed a ruling finding that artwork created solely by an artificial intelligence (AI) system is not entitled to copyright protection. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). This decision aligns with the position taken by the US Copyright Office in its recent report in light of the ongoing evolution, application, and litigation surrounding AI systems. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (2025).

While this decision may appear straightforward, future developments could arise through an application to the US Supreme Court or through cases addressing the extent of human involvement necessary in AI-generated works that seek copyright protection.

Key Takeaways

• The Copyright Act of 1976 (Act) requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being.
• The Act’s definition of “author” does not apply to machines.
• The work-made-for-hire doctrine requires an existing copyright interest.
• Thaler’s representation that the work was generated autonomously by a computer system weighed heavily against his challenges to the human-authorship requirement and the work-made-for-hire doctrine.
• The Court rejected Dr. Thaler’s arguments that (1) the term “author” is not confined to human beings; (2) the work was made for hire; and (3) the human-authorship requirement prevents protection of works made with AI.
• The Court affirmed the denial of copyright registration where the author of the work was listed as a machine."