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."

Copyright Office Doubles Down on AI Authorship Stance in the Midjourney Case; The Fashion Law (TFL), January 23, 2026

 TFL, The Fashion Law (TFL); Copyright Office Doubles Down on AI Authorship Stance in the Midjourney Case

"The U.S. Copyright Office is standing firm in its position that works generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”), even when refined or curated by a human user, do not qualify for copyright protection unless the human author clearly limits their claim to their own original contributions. In a newly filed response and cross-motion for summary judgment, the Office is asking a federal court in Colorado to deny artist Jason Allen’s motion for summary judgment and uphold its refusal to register the work at issue, arguing that the dispute turns on the Copyright Act’s long-established human authorship requirement and not hostility toward AI."