Copyright law ‘struggling’ to parse AI’s ascendancy; Harvard Law Today, June 10, 2026

 Rebecca Beyer, Harvard Law Today; Copyright law ‘struggling’ to parse AI’s ascendancy

"Deferring hard decisions about which kinds of machine-assisted creative works can be copyrighted over nearly 250 years has made it harder to ascertain whether works produced with the help of artificial intelligence can receive legal protection, according to Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet...

Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment, spoke as part of a panel discussion, “Copyright in AI Outputs: Who Owns AI-Created Works?,” that was presented by HLS Beyond in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March decision to deny certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, a case in which lower courts upheld the Copyright Office’s decision not to issue a copyright to an AI-generated image because “copyright law … requires human authorship.” Matt Kristoffersen ’27 moderated the discussion, which included Boston University School of Law Professor Jessica Silbey, Harvard Law Professor Christopher T. Bavitz, and an extensive Q&A session with audience members."

Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes; JD Supra, June 4, 2026

 Kayla Ganir, Benjamin Greenberg, JD Supra ; Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes

"By denying certiorari in the Thaler Case, the Supreme Court left intact several key principles flowing from the D.C. Circuit’s application of the Copyright Act’s human authorship requirement:

• A work generated autonomously by an AI system, without meaningful human contribution, lacks the human authorship necessary to qualify for copyright protection.
• The human authorship requirement does not impose a blanket prohibition against works created with the assistance of AI—rather, it requires that the author of that work be a human being and not the machine itself.
• Whether a work created with the help of AI is registerable depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the work’s creation, including how the AI tool operates and at what stage of the creative process it is used, and the overall extent of human creativity involved.
• The manner in which an applicant describes the role of AI in a copyright application will influence how the Copyright Office will assess the work under the human authorship requirement.

These principles serve as an important reminder that artists and creators should carefully consider the extent to which they rely on AI in their creative processes if they intend to seek copyright protection for their work. The Thaler Case underscores that while AI may offer innovative creative tools, protection under the Copyright Act remains grounded in human creativity, input, and judgment."

Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Human Authorship Still Controls, and Documenting the Creation Process Is Critical; The National Law Review, May 13, 2026

 Lilian Doan Davis, Polsinelli PC,  The National Law Review; Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Human Authorship Still Controls, and Documenting the Creation Process Is Critical

"Practical Steps Companies Should Consider Now

Businesses using generative AI should consider a few immediate steps:

• Document human creative input. Preserve drafts, edits, source files and records showing who selected, arranged, revised or transformed AI outputs.
• Do not assume prompting establishes ownership. Prompt logs may help show process, but they are not a substitute for evidence of human-authored expression.
• Be precise in registration strategy. Applicants should disclose AI-generated material where required, identify the human author’s contribution and claim only the human-authored portions.
• Revisit contracts and internal policies. Vendor agreements, employee policies and content-development protocols should not assume that all AI-assisted output is fully protectable or exclusively owned in the same way as traditionally authored material.

Bottom Line

The law remains grounded in conventional copyright principles. The Copyright Office’s recent guidance and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Thaler point in the same direction: copyright protection still turns on human authorship, even when AI is part of the process.

For businesses, the practical implication is not simply that some AI-generated works may be unprotectable. It is that ownership, registration and enforcement may depend on whether the company can later show what a human author actually contributed. In that sense, AI governance is also evidence governance."

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.”"