Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 38
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON D.C.
`
`
`
` Case No. 1:22-cv-01564-BAH
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`Stephen Thaler, an individual
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shira Perlmutter, in her official capacity as Register
`of Copyrights and Director of the United States
`Copyright Office; and The United States Copyright
`Office;
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Dr. Stephen Thaler (“Plaintiff”), by his undersigned attorneys, respectfully
`moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rules 7(h)(2) and 7(n), the APA, and
`Copyright Act, for an order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the grounds that
`no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`law. Support for this motion is set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities in Support, and the administrative record, ECF No. 13-2-8. Plaintiff’s requested
`relief is set forth in the accompanying Proposed Order. Plaintiff respectfully requests oral
`argument on this motion.
`
`Dated: January 10, 2023
`
`
`
`BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Ryan Abbott
`Ryan Abbott, Esq. (pro hac vice granted)
`Timothy Lamoureux, Esq. (pro hac vice
`application pending)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`Geoffrey A. Neri, Esq. VSB No. 72219
`11601 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 2080
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 593-9890
`Fax: (310) 593-9980
`Ryan@bnsklaw.com
`Tim@bnsklaw.com
`Geoff@bnsklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON D.C.
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 1:20-cv-00903-LMB-TCBVAED
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Stephen Thaler, an individual
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shira Perlmutter, in her official capacity as Register
`of Copyrights and Director of the United States
`Copyright Office; and The United States Copyright
`Office;
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Ryan Abbott, Esq. (pro hac vice granted)
`Timothy Lamoureux, Esq. (pro hac vice
`application pending)
`Geoffrey A. Neri, Esq. VSB No. 72219
`11601 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 2080
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 593-9890
`Fax: (310) 593-9980
`Ryan@bnsklaw.com
`Tim@bnsklaw.com
`Geoff@bnsklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii-vi
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................1
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Work Is Copyrightable ...............................................................................7
`The Act’s Plain Language Establishes That AI-Generated Works
`1.
`Are Copyrightable………………………………………………….7
`
`Should the Court Consider the Copyright Act Ambiguous, the
`Purpose of the Act Must be Considered and Requires
`Protection of AI-Generated Works……………………………...….9
`
`a.
`Courts Have Recognized that Technologica
`Advancement Can Cause Ambiguity in the Copyright
`Act……………………………………………………..…..9
`
`The Purpose of the Copyright Act Requires Protection
`of AI-Generated Works…………………………………..10
`
`2.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Supreme Court, Applying the Purpose of Copyright,
`Has Expanded the Scope of Copyright, Reading the Act
`Expansively, Not Regressively as the USCO Urges……...13
`
`d.
`
`
`The USCO’s Interpretation of the Act Is Not Entitled to
`Deference………………………………………………...15
`
`
`
`B. Dr. Thaler Is the Owner of the Copyright in the Work Either By
`Common Law Property Principles or, in the Alternative, Because
`as a Work For Hire Ownership Originally Vested in Him .............................20
`
`1.
`
`Accession And The Right of First Possession Both Allow Dr.
`Thaler to Be an Owner By Operation of Law…………………….20
`a.
`General Principles of Property Begetting Property
`
`Remaining with the Property Owner Provide the
`Copyright to Dr. Thaler…………...……………………..21
`
`
`Dr. Thaler Has the Right of First Possession to the
`Copyright………………………………………………...22
`
`
`b.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 38
`
`2.
`
`Alternatively, the Work Is a Work-For-Hire and Dr.
`Thaler Its Author………………………………………………….24
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Action Tapes, Inc. v. Mattson,
`462 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.,
` 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Am. Bankers Ass’n v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,
` 934 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706.). ....................................................... 6
`
`Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson,
` 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C.Cir.2001) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Ardmore Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Contreras-Sweet,
` 118 F. Supp. 3d 388 (D.D.C. 2015) ........................................................................................... 6
`
`
`Aymes v. Bonelli,
`980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1992)...................................................................................................... 27
`
`
`Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Servs., Inc. v. Hitachi Data Sys. Corp.,
`No. C 93–20079 JW, 1995 WL 836331, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 1995) ............................... 14
`
`
`Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,
` 188 U.S. 239, 23 S. Ct. 298, 47 L. Ed. 460 (1903). ................................................................... 9
`
`
`See Brown v. Legal Found. Of Washington,
` 538 U.S. 216 (2003) ................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
`111 U.S. 53 (1884), 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)............................................................................. passim
`
`
`Callaghan v. Myers,
`128 U.S. 617 (1888) .................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`Carruth v. Easterling,
`150 So.2d 852 (Miss. 1963). ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`Centennial Life Ins. v. Poston,
`88 F.3d 255 (4th Cir.1996) ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 38
`
`Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ............................................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`
`*Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,
`490 U.S. 730 (1989) .................................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`Coykendall v. Eaton,
`37 How. Pr. 438 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1869). ................................................................................ 23
`
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`664 F. Supp. 1345, 1356 (N.D. Cal. 1987), aff’d, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993),
`rev’d, on other grounds 510 U.S. 517, 114 S. Ct. 1023, 127 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1994) ................. 21
`
`
`*Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .............................................................................................................. 8, 11
`
`Golan v. Holder,
`132 S. Ct. 873 (2012). .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Fort. Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.,
`392 U.S. 390, 395 (1968) .................................................................................................... 14, 19
`
`
`Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC,
`150 F. Supp. 3d 1, 25 (D.D.C. 2015) ........................................................................................ 16
`
`
`Gerlach-Barklow Co. v. Morris & Bendien,
`23 F.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1927)........................................................................................................ 24
`
`*Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`Goldstein v. California,
` 412 U.S. 546 (1973) ........................................................................................................ 5, 14, 17
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) .............................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`Gonzales v. Oregon,
`546 U.S. 243 (2006). ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Griffin v. Sheeran,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2019 ........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 38
`
`Horror, Inc. v. Miller,
`15 F.4th 232 (2d Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc.,
`04 F.2d 306., 311 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 597, 60 S.Ct. 131,
`84 L.Ed. 499 (1939) ...................................................................................................... 20, 21, 24
`
`
`In re C Tek Software, Inc.,
`127 B.R. 501, (Bankr. D.N.H. 1991). ....................................................................................... 23
`
`
`In re Trade-Mark Cases,
`100 U.S. 82 (1879) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala,
`988 F.2d 1221 (D.C.Cir.1993). ................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1953). ....................................................................................................... 5, 11, 17
`
`
`*Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority,
`566 U.S. 449 (2012). ................................................................................................................... 8, 26
`
`
`Naruto v. Slater,
`888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 5, 19, 20
`
`
`Nebraska v. Iowa,
`143 U.S. 359 (1892) .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc.,
`684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir. 1982). ................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Pierson v. Post,
`3 Cai. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`Philips v. Washington Legal Found,
`524 U.S. 156 (1998) .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`Photocure ASA v. Kappos,
`603 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Ohio v. Betts,
`492 U.S. 158 (1989).) ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Roulo v. Russ Berrie & Co.,
` 886 F.2d 931(7th Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 38
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) ............................................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`
`Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
`544 U.S. 228 (2005) .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
` Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`*Twentieth Century Music Corp.v. Aiken,
`422 U.S. at 151 (1975) .................................................................................................. 10, 13, 18
`
`
`United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,
`334 U.S. 131 (1948) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`U.S. Home Corp. v. R.A. Kot Homes, Inc.,
`563 F.Supp.2d 971 (D.Minn. 2008 ........................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Urantia Found v. Kristen Maaherra,
`114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................... 5, 19, 20
`
`Vitaphone Corp. v. Hutchinson Amusement Co.,
`28 F. Supp. 526 (D. Mass. 1939) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`Washingtonian Co. v. Pearson,
`306 U.S. 30 (1939). ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies v. Beckwith,
` 449 U.S. 155 (1980). ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`Wihtol v. Wells,
`231 F.2d 550 (7th Cir. 1956) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................................... 26, 27
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) .......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201 ............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201(b) ........................................................................................................................ 26
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 10 of 38
`
`17 U.S.C. § 204(a) ........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`17 U.S.C. § 301(a) .......................................................................................................................... 7
`17 U.S.C. § 302 ............................................................................................................................... 9
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
` U.S.C. § 706(2) ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Act of March 4, 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075. ................................................................................ 9
`
`Author, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Employ, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2023). ............................................................................. 26
`
`Employee, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2023). ......................................................................... 26
`
`One, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2023) ............................................................................... 8, 26
`
`Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, Section 306 ............................ 16
`
`*Arthur Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-
`Generated Works: Is anything new since CONTU?, 106 HARV. L. REV 977(1993). ...... 10, 17
`
` 5
`
`
`Arthur Miller, Computers and Authorship: The Copyrightability of Computer-Generated
`Works, WIPO WORLDWIDE SYMPOSIUM ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`ASPECTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (1991),
`https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_698.pdf. at 245-246. ............................... 18
`
`
`Jane C. Ginsburg, A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary
`France and America. 64 TUL. L. REV. 991 (1989). ................................................................. 12
`
`
`João Marinotti, Possessing Intangibles, 116 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1227 (2022) .................................. 23
`
`Richard A. Epstein, Possession as the Root of Title, 13 Georgia Law Review 1221 (1979). ...... 23
`
`Sterk, “Rhetoric and Reality in Copyright Law,” 94 MICH. L. REV. 1197 (1996) .................... 11
`
`The Cathach / The Psalter of St Columba, ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY (Aug. 31, 2015),
`www.ria.ie/cathach-psalter-st-columba (last visited Aug 7, 2022)........................................... 22
`
`
`Thomas W. Merrill, Accession and Original Ownership, 1 J. Legal Analysis 459 (2009). ... 21, 22
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 51 (1976) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`H.R. 28192. H.R. REP. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909) ................................................... 12
`
`H.R. REP. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909) at 5. ............................................................... 13
`
`H.R. REP. 94-1476, 51, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5664. ............................................................ 13
`
`Local Rule 56(a) ............................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Copyright Act of 1909 ............................................................................................................ 12, 14
`TREATISES
`
` 1
`
` Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.01(A)(1)
` (rev. ed.2022)………………………………………..………………………………………9, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 12 of 38
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`I.
`With the facts not in dispute, this case boils down to one novel legal question: Can
`
`someone register a copyright in a creative work made by an artificial intelligence (“AI-Generated
`Work”)? The plain language and purpose of the Copyright Act (“Act”) agree that such works
`should be copyrightable. In addition, standard property law principles of ownership, as well as
`the work-for-hire doctrine, apply to make Plaintiff Dr. Stephen Thaler (“Dr. Thaler”) the
`copyright’s owner.
`Dr. Thaler created an AI that he directed to create artwork. It successfully did so, creating
`a piece named “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (the “Work”).
`However, when Dr. Thaler attempted to register the Work with the United States
`Copyright Office (“USCO”), the agency denied the registration, proclaiming that the office has a
`“Human Authorship Requirement” policy that applies to creative works, and that they will only
`register a human-made work.
`This policy is unsupported by law. The plain language of the Copyright Act (the “Act”)
`does not restrict copyright to human-made works, nor does any case law. The USCO mistakenly
`relies on dicta, predominantly from cases predating even the existence of modern computers,
`together with inappropriate reliance on a technical report that pre-dates autonomously creative
`AI. Unfortunately, the USCO’s policy frustrates the purpose of the Act which is to promote the
`dissemination and creation of works. By contrast, allowing copyright on AI-Generated Works
`encourages the development and use of creative AI which results in the generation of more
`works, and provides incentives for those works to be disseminated.
`
`The Work is therefore copyrightable and it belongs to Dr. Thaler. This ownership follows
`from bedrock property law principles, namely, that when someone has property that generates
`additional property, like a tree bearing fruit, a cow having a calf, or a 3D printer making a
`physical painting, the owner of the original property owns the subsequent property. Dr. Thaler is
`also the owner based on being the first possessor of the Work, as first possession is a basis for
`ownership. Finally, given the way the AI was created, how it operates, and Dr. Thaler’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 13 of 38
`
`ownership of it, there is no need to transfer property from the AI, as he could be the author
`pursuant to the work-for-hire doctrine, and therefore the original owner.
`Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to the legal issue alone—whether an AI-
`Generated Work is copyrightable.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7(h), Plaintiff Dr. Stephen Thaler (“Thaler”), submits this
`statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue.
`Plaintiff Dr. Stephen Thaler develops, owns, and applies AI systems capable of
`1.
`generating creative output that would historically qualify for copyright protection and that are
`made under conditions in which no natural person contributed to the work as a traditional author
`(“AI-Generated Works”). See US_261 (“In the present case, the current applicant, Stephen
`Thaler, is the owner of the Al that generated the CGW and should thus be the owner of any
`copyright. Stephen Thaler was also the AI's user and programmer.”)
`Plaintiff’s AI system produced a two-dimensional artwork (the “Work”) titled “A
`2.
`Recent Entrance to Paradise,” reproduced below:
`
`
`1 The Administrative Record was filed by the USCO as Docket Entry 13. The USCO Bates
`Stamped the pages of the record US_0000001-37. For simplicity, given the small number of
`pages comprising the Administrative Record, it shall be referred to using the USCO’s Bates
`prefix following by up to two digits.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`US_31.
`
`On November 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application (#1-7100387071) to register
`3.
`the Work with the United States Copyright Office. US_01-03.
`In the application, Plaintiff identified the author of the Work as “Creativity
`4.
`Machine,” and noted it was “Created autonomously by machine.” Id. at 02. Plaintiff listed
`himself as the “Copyright Claimant” alongside a transfer statement labelled “Ownership of the
`Machine.” Id.
`Plaintiff separately noted in the application that the Work was autonomously
`5.
`created by a computer and that he was entitled to own the copyright in the Work including by
`virtue of the work made for hire doctrine. Id.
`On August 12, 2019, the USCO refused to register the claim based on the lack of
`6.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 15 of 38
`
`human authorship. That refusal stated, “We cannot register this work because it lacks the human
`authorship necessary to support a copyright claim. According to your application this work was
`‘created autonomously by machine.’” US_05. The refusal did not address Dr. Thaler’s
`entitlement to any copyright in the Work. See id.
`Plaintiff filed two requests for reconsideration to the USCO on September 23,
`7.
`2019, and May 27, 2020, respectively. US_09-16, US_23-30. Plaintiff confirmed that the
`submission lacked traditional human authorship. Id. However, Plaintiff argued that the USCO’s
`human authorship requirement was unsupported by law. Id.
`In denying the first request for reconsideration, the USCO reiterated its response
`8.
`that the copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the
`creative powers of the mind.” Citing to In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). US_19.
`The USCO stated that since copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the
`author,” it refused to register the claim because it determined a human being did not create the
`Work. Id. The USCO again cited to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53,
`58(1884), 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), and the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306
`(3ded. 2017). Id.
`On February 14, 2022, the USCO reconsidered Plaintiff’s request the second time,
`9.
`and again refused to register the Work. US_31-37. The USCO accepted that the Work was
`“autonomously created by artificial intelligence without any creative contribution from a human
`actor.” US_32. Citing again to In re Trade-Mark Cases, the USCO stated that Plaintiff had failed
`to either provide evidence that the Work is the product of human authorship or convince the
`USCO to “depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence.” US_33. Since there was no issue of
`human author involvement, the USCO limited its review to whether the human authorship
`requirement was unconstitutional and unsupported by case law. See US_31-37.
`The USCO stated that the phrase “original work of authorship” was
`10.
`“purposefully left undefined” by Congress in order to “incorporate without change the standard
`of originality established by the courts under the [1909] copyright statute[,]” citing to H.R. Rep.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 16 of 38
`
`No. 94-1476, at 51 (1976). US_33-34. The USCO further stated that the Act leaves
`“unquestionably other areas of existing subject matter that [Bill 94-1476 did] not propose to
`protect but that future Congresses may want to.” Id.
`The USCO cited again to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co., stating that copyright
`11.
`was afforded to photography because photographs are “representatives of original intellectual
`conceptions of [an] author,” observing that the court referred to “authors” as
`human. US_34. Citing to Mazer v. Stein, the USCO stated that the Supreme Court
`defined an author as someone who “may be viewed as an individual who writes an original
`composition.” US_34. The USCO further relied on the stating Goldstein v. California, citing that
`“the term in its constitutional sense, has been construed to mean an ‘originator,’ ‘he to whom
`anything owes its origin.’” Id. USCO argues this requires human authorship as an essential
`element of protection. Id.
`Providing additional examples for its decision, the USCO also referred to Urantia
`12.
`Found v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 957-959 (9th Cir. 1997), arguing the court refused to
`extend copyright protection to non-human creations. US_34-35. The USCO additionally referred
`to Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418, 426 (9th Cir. 2018) arguing a monkey cannot register a
`copyright because the Act specifically referred to an author’s “children,” “widow,”
`“grandchildren,” and “widower,” which necessarily implied humans and excluded animals. The
`USCO acknowledged that it was unaware whether a court had considered the authorship of a
`copyright by artificial intelligence but argued that the decisions rejecting registration for non-
`human spiritual beings and animals supported its position. US_35.
`The USCO also cited to the National Commission on New Technological Uses of
`13.
`Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) as support of its position. CONTU was mandated, in part, to
`study the “creation of new works by the application or intervention of [] automatic systems of
`machine reproduction.” US_35. In the final report in 1979, CONTU determined that the existing
`judicial construction requiring human authorship sufficiently enabled protection for works
`created with the use of computers, and that no amendment to copyright law was needed. US_35-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 17 of 38
`
`36. CONTU specifically stated that eligibility of registration did not depend on the use of devices
`in its creation, but rather if there was the presence of at least minimal human creative effort at the
`time it was produced. US_35.
`Finally, USCO cited to “a recent report from the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`14.
`Office (“USPTO”) addressing intellectual property issues raised by AI.” In its summary of
`responses, USPTO stated that “the vast majority of commenters acknowledged that existing law
`does not permit a non-human to be an author [and] this should remain the law.” US_36.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under the APA, “the statute provides that [the Federal Courts] ‘decide all relevant
`questions of law’ and “interpret . . . statutory provisions.’ We ordinarily set aside agency actions
`that are either ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
`law,’ or ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.’”
`Am. Bankers Ass’n v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 934 F.3d 649, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting 5
`U.S.C. § 706.).
`“[W]hen, as here, the court is reviewing a final agency action under the APA, the
`standard set forth in Rule 56(a) does not apply. Instead of reviewing the record for disputed facts
`that would preclude summary judgment, the function of the district court is a more limited one:
`to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record
`permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Ardmore Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Contreras-
`Sweet, 118 F. Supp. 3d 388, 393 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`As the Court of Appeal has further explained, “when a party seeks review of agency action under
`the APA, the district judge sits as an appellate tribunal . . . [t]he ‘entire case’ on review is a
`question of law.” Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F. 3d 1077, 1083 (D.C.Cir.2001)
`(quoting Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1226 (D.C.Cir.1993).)
`Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to reinstate the Applications and vacate
`the prior decision on the petition for registration of copyright. Under the APA, the Court “shall . .
`. hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 16 Filed 01/10/23 Page 18 of 38
`
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B)
`contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; [or] (C) in excess of statutory
`jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The court
`must judge the propriety of the agency’s action based “solely [on] the grounds invoked by the
`agency” when it made the challenged decision. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The Work Is Copyrightable
`A.
`The Act’s Plain Language Establishes That AI-Generated Works
`3.
`Are Copyrightable
`It is undisputed that the Work constitutes a fixed, visual artwork that would be protected
`under the Act had it been created through traditional human labor. The sole basis for the USCO’s
`refusal to register the Work is because it claims that copyright protection is limited to “creations
`of human authors.”2 US_34. The USCO does not clarify whether its “Human Authorship
`Requirement” is a requirement related to authorship in of itself or the stand