Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/32

 (discussing the “key questions from which the topic’s many uncertainties unfold”). The Office will be addressing these issues in the coming year. Among other things, it is preparing registration guidance for works generated by using AI, planning public events to discuss emerging issues, and taking steps to issue a notice of inquiry on complex questions involving copyright and AI. The Office’s AI initiatives will consider the broader policy questions surrounding AI, and Plaintiff is welcome to participate in that work. But the Court here is limited to applying the law as it exists now, not as Plaintiff might wish it to be. Plaintiff’s policy arguments cannot be the basis for finding the Office’s decision arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s Proposed Order requests that the Court order Defendants to “register the Copyright in the artwork entitled ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise,’ as applied for by Stephen Thaler.” Dkt. 16-1. Such relief, however, is outside the scope of the APA. See Coach, Inc. v. Peters, 386 F. Supp. 2d 495, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“plaintiffs have citied no authority, and the Court is aware of none, that would allow this Court, on a review under the APA, to order [the Copyright Office] to register the works.”) (citing Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 979 F.2d 242, 247 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (remanding to “the district court with instructions to again return the matter of Atari’s application to the Register for renewed consideration”)).