Discussion · bonfire.mavnn.eu

Discussion

The Supreme Court has just turned down a petition to hear an appeal in a case that held that AI works can't be copyrighted. By turning down the appeal, the Supreme Court took a massively consequential step to protect creative workers' interests:

https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/03/its-a-trap/#inheres-at-the-moment-of-fixation

The Supreme Court building. It has been tinted sepia. Floating in front of it are a 1920s-era Supreme Court, tinted blue-green, their heads replaced with the glaring red eyes of HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey,' and their hands tinted hot pink. They have been distorted with a ripple effect and TV scan lines. The sky is full of dark clouds.

Image:
Cryteria (modified)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en — The Supreme Court building. It has been tinted sepia. Floating in front of it are a 1920s-era Supreme Court, tinted blue-green, their heads replaced with the glaring red eyes of HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey,' and their hands tinted hot pink. They have been distorted with a ripple effect and TV scan lines. The sky is full of dark clouds. Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

https://pluralistic.net

Pluralistic: Supreme Court saves artists from AI (03 Mar 2026)

The Verge

AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule

A lower court previously said that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

Adam Beer

@[email protected] replied · 4 days ago

@pluralistic Fantastic news.

The phrase I've heard is, "Bad facts make bad law," and this is a case where good facts made good law!

Paul Schoe

@[email protected] replied · 6 days ago

Very interesting read, this article explaining why AI works cannot get a copyright.

With several examples of interesting and sometimes funny rulings in the past.

One quote:
This is wonderful news for creative workers. It means that our bosses must pay humans to do work if they want to be granted copyright on the things they want to sell.

#AI #Copyright
@pluralistic

[email protected]

@[email protected] replied · 6 days ago

@[email protected] @[email protected]

I feel like a determination that AI works cannot be copyrighted is fairly similar to the case, a few years back, where someone wanted to copyright pictures taken by a monkey with their camera.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie

Adam Beer

@[email protected] replied · 4 days ago

@ferricoxide @pluralistic @paulschoe Obviously you didn't read the piece: it mentions that case long before the section that Paul quoted.

[email protected]

@[email protected] replied · 4 days ago

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Historically, when I've clicked on a Verge link (at least those posted from @[email protected]), I've been presented with a "login to continue reading" overlay. It made me stop clicking on Verge links, a while ago, because of it). So, no, I didn't read it.