Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/12

 The Office’s decision also relied on its many years of experience interpreting and applying copyright law. It collects this understanding of the law and provides standards for examining and registering works in its Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Third Edition) (Compendium). Updates to the Compendium are typically adopted following a period for public notice and comment. See, , Introduction at 7 (3d. ed. 2021) (referencing welcoming public input on the Compendium during “formal notice and commenting periods”). The Office looks to the Compendium when reviewing copyright registration applications, including with regard to the requirements for copyrightability. As other courts have recognized, registration decisions that have been based on “the Copyright Act, the content of related regulations, and the Compendium … can hardly be deemed to be ‘arbitrary and capricious’” and such reasonable determinations “must be accorded substantial deference.” Yu Zhang v. Heineken N.V., No. CV 08-06506, 2010 WL 4457460, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2010) (citation omitted).

The Compendium contains several sections addressing the human authorship requirement. The Compendium specifies “the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” § 306. Likewise, the Compendium provides that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual