Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Answer to Complaint.pdf/2



1. Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiff’s assertions regarding Dr. Thaler’s “business” and those allegations are deemed denied. The remainder of Paragraph 1 is a conclusory statement made by Plaintiff that requires no response. To the extent the paragraph is deemed to contain allegations that require a response, the same are denied.

2. Defendants admit that Dr. Thaler “filed to register copyright for an AI-Generated Work” titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” with the Copyright Office. Defendants further admit that the application named “Creativity Machine” as the Author and “Steven Thaler” as the Copyright Claimant. Any remaining allegations are denied.

3. Defendants admit that the Copyright Office denied registration of a copyright in the work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” and the quoted language in Paragraph 3 is contained within the Copyright Review Board’s (“Board”) final decision, quoting the Copyright Office’s Initial Letter Refusing Registration. Further, Defendants admit that the Board’s determination constitutes a final agency action. Any remaining allegations are denied.

4. Denied.

5. Paragraph 5 is an argumentative, conclusory statement made by Plaintiff that requires no response. To the extent the paragraph is deemed to contain allegations that require a response, the same are denied.

6. Defendants admit that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 704, the Administrative Procedure Act, final agency actions are subject to judicial review. The remainder of Paragraph 6 is a statement of Plaintiff’s objectives that requires no response. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, the allegations are denied, and Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. Rh