Supreme Court vs. AI: The Legal Battle Over Who Gets Credit for That Weird Painting of a Cat in a Spacesuit

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a landmark case that could determine whether AI-generated content—art, music, writing, and yes, even those creepy deepfake Drake songs—can be copyrighted. And the DMV is watching closely, because let’s face it: half of D.C. already thinks their job could be replaced by a chatbot.

The Case

At the center of the case is a painting created entirely by an AI model named “Artie.” The creator of the AI wants copyright protection. The government says, “Nice try, but robots don’t get royalties.”

It’s the first time the Supreme Court has tackled the question: Can something with no soul, no heartbeat, and no student loans be considered an artist?

DMV Legal Nerds React

• In D.C., law students are live-tweeting the hearings like it’s the Super Bowl.
• In Arlington, a startup founder tried to copyright his AI’s pitch deck. It was just a PowerPoint that said “Disrupt” 47 times.
• In Bethesda, a guy asked ChatGPT to write a poem about the case. It rhymed “algorithm” with “prism” and somehow made it about brunch.

Why It Matters

If the Court rules in favor of AI copyright, it could upend everything from publishing to Hollywood to your cousin’s Etsy store that sells AI-generated cat memes. If they rule against it, it could mean that anything made by AI is free for all—like a creative version of the Wild West, but with more code and fewer horses.

Final Thoughts

Whether you’re a creator, a coder, or just someone who likes watching old people in robes argue about robots, this case is a big deal. And in the DMV, where law, tech, and existential dread intersect daily, it’s the perfect storm of relevance. Stay tuned—because the future of creativity might just be decided by nine humans who still print their emails.