Humanity, the non-negotiable in creative connection.

As a team of strategic creatives, we at Core believe human contribution is essential for genuine storytelling. We view AI not as a replacement, but as a force multiplier of creativity and inspiration. While AI will continue to pressure human creativity, the recent events — including the USPTO copyright decision and SORA shutdown — are encouraging milestones in a time where AI’s speed and sophistication directly challenge human skill in quickly producing polished creative. As AI accelerates, so do the legal and ethical frameworks shaping how creativity is owned, protected and valued.

The Copyright Conundrum

On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, cementing human authorship as a fundamental requirement for copyright. As global perspectives diverge, human creators face a "documentation or denial" landscape, where prompting alone fails to establish ownership. Here’s where things currently stand — and where ambiguity still leaves room for interpretation:

• Case by Case: Currently, evaluation of copyright-ability is done case-by-case by the USCO (Copyright office).
• The Final Say: To date, neither the USCO, the USPTO (Patent & Trademark Office), nor the U.S. Court System have provided clear guidance as to the extent of human contribution required to guarantee a copyrightable status. Pending court cases may eventually provide clarity on this legal grey area.
• Copyrightable AI Use: Protection is available for outputs where AI plays an assistive role, provided there is prominent, thorough documentation of human contribution.
• The "De Minimis" Rule: Minor AI-driven functions like generative fill, sharpening, or basic reformatting do not require disclosure during copyright review.
• Prompting Limits: No matter the volume, AI prompting alone is not considered authorship. One recent case involving over 600 prompts was denied copyright due to a lack of human contribution.
• Global Shift: While the U.S. maintains more strict copyright standards, other 2026 global rulings have begun offering broader protection for predominantly AI generated works.

While copyright law is working to define the boundaries of human contribution, the technology itself is revealing its own limitations.

The Sora 2 Shutdown

In late March 2026, OpenAI announced the shutdown of its Sora 2 video platform (App closes 4/26/26; API ends 9/26/26). Despite a $1B partnership with Disney only months prior, the model proved unsustainable due to high generation costs and inconsistent quality. This move highlights a critical reality, that while human video production is often slower and more expensive, it provides an emotional authenticity and nuance that AI cannot replicate.

Taken together, these shifts point to something bigger than any single policy or platform change. We understand that, as AI continues to evolve, so must we. But the role of human creativity isn’t shrinking, it’s becoming more essential — and it’s reinvigorating to see our point of view on human contribution is still supported by both policy and public sentiment alike. The ideas that resonate, the stories that stick and the work that moves people to act still require empathy, intuition and lived experience; both for connection and legal protection.