Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/9

 photographs taken by a monkey), and Urantia Foundation v. Kristen [sic] Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) (involving a book “authored by celestial beings”)). These decisions employ reasoning that applies squarely to this case and have uniformly rejected non-human authorship of copyrighted works. See id.

Efforts by Plaintiff to avoid the holdings in those cases are superficial at best. Plaintiff urges this Court to ignore any case-law that addressed multiple copyright issues—as if reaching more than one question could somehow dilute or nullify a court’s opinion as to authorship. See Dkt. 18 at 5–6. For example, Plaintiff’s main quarrel with Kelley – the case involving a living garden – is that the Seventh Circuit’s holding involved both authorship and fixation issues. Id. at 6. Regardless of the other issues at stake, Kelley unambiguously addressed the type of human involvement required for copyright protection. See Kelley, 635 F.3d at 303 (“[A] living garden lacks the kind of authorship and stable fixation normally required to support copyright” and “authorship and fixation are explicit constitutional requirements”). Even Plaintiff concedes that “the Kelley court stated that authors are human.” Dkt. 18 at 6.

Similarly, in trying to discount Naruto – the case regarding photographs taken by a monkey – Plaintiff notes that the case was decided on standing grounds. See Dkt. 18 at 6. Plaintiff fails to explain why this observation makes the case any less relevant. In Naruto, the