Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/26

 {| Plaintiff is also incorrect that common law or the work made for hire doctrine permits him to claim a copyright interest in the Work. See Dkt. 16 at 20–26. As explained above, copyright does not protect the creations of non-human authors therefore there is no interest to be claimed. No copyright in the Work exists and therefore Plaintiff’s common law property and work made for hire arguments do not alter the Office’s conclusion. However, for completeness, Defendants will address each argument.
 * Neither Common Law Nor the Work-Made-for-Hire Doctrine are a Basis for Plaintiff to Claim Authorship of the Work
 * }
 * Neither Common Law Nor the Work-Made-for-Hire Doctrine are a Basis for Plaintiff to Claim Authorship of the Work
 * }

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s reliance on common law regarding property ownership is irrelevant because they involve physical rather than intangible property. See Dkt. 16 at 21–24. It is a fundamental principle of intellectual property, confirmed in the Act, that ownership of a material object is distinct from ownership of intangible rights embodied in that object. See 17 U.S.C. § 202 (“Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first