Marshall Gerstein Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Landmark AI Copyright Case
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP announced that it served as counsel for a coalition of 14 academics and legal experts who filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 25-449). The case, which has drawn national attention, asks the Court to decide whether U.S. copyright law categorically excludes works generated by artificial intelligence.
The amici – who are professors and researchers from Harvard, Georgetown, Fordham, and Penn State Dickinson Law – are represented by Marshall Gerstein partners Ryan N. Phelan and Michael R. Weiner, and associate Isaku M. Begert. The professors argue that excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection “threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth.” The brief calls for an interpretation of the Copyright Act that aligns with its constitutional purpose to promote progress in science and the arts.
“This case sits at the intersection of technology, creativity, and the rule of law,” said Phelan. “The question before the Court goes beyond AI; it’s about ensuring our copyright framework keeps pace with how Americans create and innovate. The decision will help determine whether U.S. copyright continues to evolve with innovation or falls behind global peers.”
The petitioner, computer scientist Stephen Thaler, developed a system known as the “Creativity Machine” and sought copyright registration for a visual artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” naming the AI system as the author. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, holding that only human creations are eligible for copyright protection, a decision upheld by the D.C. Circuit earlier this year. Thaler’s petition now asks the Supreme Court to review whether that human authorship requirement is supported by statute.
The amicus brief also highlights how the work-for-hire doctrine provides a practical, legally grounded framework for assigning authorship and accountability for AI-generated works, similar to how copyright law already treats corporations as authors. Additionally, it references the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, emphasizing that courts – not administrative agencies – must interpret ambiguous statutes affecting creative and economic progress.
Law360 first reported on the firm’s involvement, noting the case’s potential to shape the future of authorship, innovation, and global competitiveness in AI-driven industries.