**Trader consensus heavily favors the Supreme Court not accepting an AI copyright case before 2027, reflected in the 87% implied probability for "No."** The dominant factor is timing: major disputes, including the New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft litigation and related consolidated actions, remain at the district court stage. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed only in early September 2026, with a ruling expected in the coming months and any trial likely in 2027 or later. Lower-court appeals and petitions for certiorari would extend well beyond 2026. The Court already denied review in the leading AI-authorship matter, Thaler v. Perlmutter, in March 2026, and no other AI training or fair-use cases appear on track for imminent Supreme Court consideration. Recent Ninth Circuit decisions on ancillary DMCA claims in AI tools further illustrate that substantive fair-use questions are still developing at lower levels. With the 2026 term already underway and limited remaining slots before year-end, traders see little realistic pathway for acceptance in the narrow window left.
Polymarketデータを参照したAI生成の実験的な要約。これは取引アドバイスではなく、このマーケットの解決方法には一切関係ありません。 · 更新日はい
はい
A case qualifies if at least one of its claims or defenses, as described in the petition for certiorari or in the lower court's decision under review, concerns any of the following: (1) whether using copyrighted works to train, develop, or fine-tune an artificial intelligence model infringes copyright or is fair use; (2) whether outputs generated by an artificial intelligence model infringe copyright, or who is liable for such infringement; (3) whether works created in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence system are eligible for copyright protection, or who may be their author; or (4) any other claim under Title 17 of the United States Code, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that arises from the training or development of an artificial intelligence model or from its outputs. An artificial intelligence model means any system that learns from data or generates content, including machine-learning and generative AI models such as large language, image, audio, and video models; the petition or decision does not need to use the words "artificial intelligence" or "AI". A grant limited to a procedural, jurisdictional, or remedial question in a qualifying case will count. A case in which an artificial intelligence developer is a party but no claim or defense concerns the matters listed above will not qualify.
Granting certiorari means an order granting a petition for a writ of certiorari, including certiorari before judgment. An order that grants certiorari, vacates the lower court's judgment, and remands without further review (a GVR order) will not qualify. Denials of certiorari, orders inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief, relisting of a petition, and rulings on emergency applications or stays will not qualify. A qualifying case does not need to be pending before the Court at the time this market is created, and a qualifying grant will resolve this market to "Yes" even if the case is later dismissed, settled, or otherwise removed from the Court's docket.
The grant must appear on the Supreme Court's official orders list or docket dated on or before December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET; the date of the Court's order governs, regardless of when reporting confirms it. The case does not need to be heard, scheduled, or decided by the deadline to qualify.
The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov), including its orders lists and case dockets; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
マーケット開始日: Sep 17, 2026, 8:03 PM ET
A case qualifies if at least one of its claims or defenses, as described in the petition for certiorari or in the lower court's decision under review, concerns any of the following: (1) whether using copyrighted works to train, develop, or fine-tune an artificial intelligence model infringes copyright or is fair use; (2) whether outputs generated by an artificial intelligence model infringe copyright, or who is liable for such infringement; (3) whether works created in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence system are eligible for copyright protection, or who may be their author; or (4) any other claim under Title 17 of the United States Code, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that arises from the training or development of an artificial intelligence model or from its outputs. An artificial intelligence model means any system that learns from data or generates content, including machine-learning and generative AI models such as large language, image, audio, and video models; the petition or decision does not need to use the words "artificial intelligence" or "AI". A grant limited to a procedural, jurisdictional, or remedial question in a qualifying case will count. A case in which an artificial intelligence developer is a party but no claim or defense concerns the matters listed above will not qualify.
Granting certiorari means an order granting a petition for a writ of certiorari, including certiorari before judgment. An order that grants certiorari, vacates the lower court's judgment, and remands without further review (a GVR order) will not qualify. Denials of certiorari, orders inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief, relisting of a petition, and rulings on emergency applications or stays will not qualify. A qualifying case does not need to be pending before the Court at the time this market is created, and a qualifying grant will resolve this market to "Yes" even if the case is later dismissed, settled, or otherwise removed from the Court's docket.
The grant must appear on the Supreme Court's official orders list or docket dated on or before December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET; the date of the Court's order governs, regardless of when reporting confirms it. The case does not need to be heard, scheduled, or decided by the deadline to qualify.
The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov), including its orders lists and case dockets; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
**Trader consensus heavily favors the Supreme Court not accepting an AI copyright case before 2027, reflected in the 87% implied probability for "No."** The dominant factor is timing: major disputes, including the New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft litigation and related consolidated actions, remain at the district court stage. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed only in early September 2026, with a ruling expected in the coming months and any trial likely in 2027 or later. Lower-court appeals and petitions for certiorari would extend well beyond 2026. The Court already denied review in the leading AI-authorship matter, Thaler v. Perlmutter, in March 2026, and no other AI training or fair-use cases appear on track for imminent Supreme Court consideration. Recent Ninth Circuit decisions on ancillary DMCA claims in AI tools further illustrate that substantive fair-use questions are still developing at lower levels. With the 2026 term already underway and limited remaining slots before year-end, traders see little realistic pathway for acceptance in the narrow window left.
Polymarketデータを参照したAI生成の実験的な要約。これは取引アドバイスではなく、このマーケットの解決方法には一切関係ありません。 · 更新日


外部リンクに注意してください。
外部リンクに注意してください。
よくある質問