Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/5



Nothing in Plaintiff’s Opposition and Reply makes the Copyright Office’s reasoned rejection of the application to register a work alleged to be autonomously created by artificial intelligence (AI) arbitrary or capricious. Rather than meaningfully engaging with the facts, established law, or relevant standard under the APA, Plaintiff merely repeats policy arguments that AI-generated works deserve copyright protection. The Court should decline Plaintiff’s invitation to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision to refuse registration of an AI-generated work. Plaintiff provides no basis to support either rejection of the longstanding human authorship requirement for copyright protection or creation of an exception for AI-generated works. Plaintiff’s argument is based on a misreading of the Copyright Act (the Act) and the relevant caselaw regarding human authorship. As discussed in Defendants’ Cross-Motion, both the Act and the relevant caselaw support the Copyright Office’s position.