SCOTUS declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material

Other coverage:

* The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your AI-generated art https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-supreme-court-doesnt-care-if...

* U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to...

* AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-...

If SCOTUS is saying that AI works, even those co-authored by humans, are not eligible for copyright/patenting;

Doesn't that mean any code-base that uses AI generated code does not have an implicit copyright holder? And thus even the human constructor does not have the right to apply any license [closed/open] onto it whatsoever?

There is a huge difference between SCOTUS "declines to hear" versus SCOTUS "rules that ..."

Certainly there is no difference to these particular parties. But refusing to hear the case in such an important field as AI is simply an indication SCOTUS is feels it is too early for it to be making rules involving a very fast moving and transformative field as AI.