Constitution and the Copyright Act as its authority as well as referencing an 1884 case involving a photograph of Oscar Wilde. The Office, however, doubled down on its commitment to the requirement of human authorship in the Policy, stating that this requirement is “well-established” and citing both the U.S. It is true that Section 101: Definitions of the Copyright Act does not define the term “author,” nor is that term defined elsewhere in the statute. In his complaint and in his motion for summary judgment filed earlier this month, Thaler argues that the Copyright Act does not include any requirement of human authorship. Perlmutter, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01564) against Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. District Court for the District of Washington, DC ( Thaler v. Thaler’s application for registration stated that an AI system that he developed, i.e., “Creativity Machine,” was the “author” of the image and Thaler was the “claimant.” But the Office has taken the position that copyright protection is available only to human authors and rejected Thaler’s application stating that the work at issue “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Thaler filed an appeal to the Office Review Board, which confirmed the rejection because the work was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.” Thaler then filed a lawsuit in the U.S.

Cam works