Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/8

 In his application, Plaintiff represented that the copyright author was the “Creativity Machine,” an artificial intelligence (AI) machine which he alleged had “autonomously” created the Work. Plaintiff also stated that he was the owner of the copyright in the Work because he owned the Creativity Machine or, in the alternative, pursuant to the “work for hire” doctrine.

In rejecting the application, the Office confirmed that copyright protection does not extend to non-human authors. As described herein, the Office’s determination was based on the language of the Copyright Act, Supreme Court precedent, and federal court decisions refusing to extend copyright protection to non-human authorship. The Office cited these authorities when it rejected the arguments asserted by Plaintiff, and repeatedly explained the basis for its decision in response to Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration. The Office also correctly rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that he is the owner of the Work based on common law or the work made for hire doctrine. The Office’s refusal to register the Work is supported by the Administrative Record and was sound, reasoned, and firmly based on the applicable laws. There are no material issues of fact in dispute, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.