USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 1 of 99
`
`
`CASE NO. 23-5233
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`COURT OF APPEALS
`
`STEPHEN THALER,
`Plaintiff and Appellant,
`v.
`SHIRA PERLMUTTER, Register of Copyrights and
`Director of the United States Copyright Office, et al.,
`Defendant and Appellee.
`
`APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
`
`On Appeal From Order of the United States District Court
`for the District of Columbia
`(Oral argument not yet scheduled)
`Honorable Beryl A. Howell
`Case No. 1:22-cv-01564-BAH
`BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
`Ryan Abbott (SBN 281641)
`ryan@bnsklaw.com
`Timothy G. Lamoureux (SBN 294048)
`tim@bnsklaw.com
`11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 593-9890
`Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
`Attorneys for Appellant Stephan Thaler
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 2 of 99
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
`
`CASES
`
`Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1) Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`STEPHEN THALER certifies the following:
`
`(a)
`
`Parties and Amici
`
`Stephen Thaler is the plaintiff in the district court and the appellant
`
`in this Court. Dr. Stephen Thaler is an individual, not a
`
`nongovernmental corporation or other entity. Therefore, no parent
`
`corporations or any publicly held companies own 10 percent or more of
`
`the stock of the party we represent. No law firms, partners, or
`
`associates who are expected to appear have not already entered an
`
`appearance in this court. No appeal from the same trial court action
`
`was previously before this or any other appellate court or agency.
`
`STEPHEN THALER has no information identifying organizational
`
`victims in criminal cases and debtors and trustees in bankruptcy cases
`
`as required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) and 26.1(c).
`
`Dr. Stephen Thaler is a computer scientist who invents and develops
`
`articifial intelligence systems.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 3 of 99
`
`
`The United States Copyright Office is the defendant in the district
`
`court and the appellee in this Court.
`
`The Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States
`
`Copyright Office is included in her professional capacity as a defendant
`
`in the district court and appelle in this Court.
`
`(b)
`
`Rulings Under Review.
`
`Plaintiff-appellant Stephen Thaler appeals the August 18, 2023
`
`memorandum opinion (ECF No. 24) and order (ECF No. 23) of the
`
`United States District Court for the Columbia (Beryl A. Howell, J.)
`
`granting Defendant-Appellee’s Copyright Office’s motion for summary
`
`judgment and denying Stephen Thaler’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`The opinion is not yet published in the federal reporter but is available
`
`at Thaler v. Perlmutter, CV 22-1564 (BAH), 2023 WL 5333236 (D.D.C.
`
`Aug. 18, 2023) and reproduced in the Appendix at APPX 185 - 199.
`
`(c)
`
` Related Cases.
`
`There are no cases pending in any court or agency that will directly
`
`affect or be directly affected by the Federal Circuit's decision in this
`
`appeal.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 4 of 99
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, appellant states that to the
`
`best of his knowledge:
`
`No appeal from the same trial court action was previously before
`
`this or any other appellate court or agency and there are no cases
`
`pending in any court or agency that will directly affect or be directly
`
`affected by the Federal Circuit's decision in this appeal.
`
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure section 34(a), the
`
`Appellant Stephen Thaler requests an oral argument on this matter.
`
`Appellant requests the oral argument because of the novel, complex, and
`
`important issues relating to copyright raised in this matter, and
`
`Appellant believes given these issues the Court will benefit from the
`
`opportunity to have the oral argument.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 5 of 99
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND
`
`RELATEDCASES ............................................................................. ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................... viii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................ 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................... 2
`
`IV. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ........................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................ 3
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................... 10
`
`VII. STANDING ........................................................................... 11
`
`VIII. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................... 12
`
`A. The Court of Appeals Reviews the District Court’s Decision
`
`De Novo ................................................................................. 12
`
`B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Give Any Deference to the
`
`Copyright Office’s Decision ................................................... 14
`
`C. Appropriate Legal Standard ................................................. 19
`
`IX. ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 6 of 99
`
`
`A. Dr. Thaler’s Artwork Is Entitled to Copyright Protection ... 21
`
`1. The Copyright Act’s Plain Language Establishes That AI-
`
`Generated Works Are Entitled to Copyright Protection . 21
`
`2. The Work is Sufficiently Original And Creative ............. 27
`
`3. Should the Court Consider the Copyright Act Ambiguous,
`
`the Purpose of the Act Must be Considered and Requires
`
`Protection of AI-Generated Works ................................... 29
`
`a. Courts Have Recognized that Technological
`
`Advancement Can Cause Ambiguity in the Copyright
`
`Act ................................................................................. 30
`
`b. The Purpose of the Copyright Act Requires Protection
`
`of AI-Generated Works ................................................ 31
`
`c. The Supreme Court, Applying the Purpose of
`
`Copyright, Has Repeatedly Expanded the Scope of
`
`Copyright, Showing an Expansive Principle Should Be
`
`Applied ......................................................................... 37
`
`4. The Copyright Office Has No Support For Its View that
`
`Original Works of Authorship Require Natural Persons 38
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 7 of 99
`
`
`B. Dr. Thaler Is the Only Possible Owner of Copyright in the
`
`Work ...................................................................................... 42
`
`1. Dr. Thaler Is Right Holder Based on His Ownership of
`
`The Creativity Machine .................................................... 45
`
`a. General Principles of Property Begetting Property
`
`Remaining with the Property Owner Provide the
`
`Copyright to Dr. Thaler ............................................... 46
`
`b. Dr. Thaler Has the Right of First Possession to the
`
`Copyright ...................................................................... 49
`
`2. Alternately, Dr. Thaler Is the Work’s Author So No
`
`Property Transfer Is Necessary ....................................... 52
`
`a. Dr. Thaler is the Owner As the Work Is a Work for
`
`Hire ............................................................................... 52
`
`b. In the Alternate, Dr. Thaler is Directly the Work’s
`
`Author .......................................................................... 56
`
`X. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 58
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................... 59
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................ 60
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 8 of 99
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Action Tapes, Inc. v. Mattson,
`462 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 38
`Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock,
`480 U.S. 678 (1987) .............................................................................. 42
`Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts,
`191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951) .................................................................... 27
`Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin.,
`934 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 19
`Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson,
`269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ............................................................ 20
`Am. Forest Res. Council v. Hall,
`533 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................................................ 14
`Ardmore Consulting Group, Inc. v. Contreras-Sweet,
`118 F. Supp. 3d 388 (D.D.C. 2015) ................................................ 20, 53
`Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Services, Inc. v. Hitachi Data Sys. Corp., C,
`93-20079 JW, 1995 WL 836331 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 1995) .................. 38
`Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,
`188 U.S. 239 (1903) .............................................................................. 29
`Brown v. Legal Found. of Washington,
`538 U.S. 216 (2003) .............................................................................. 48
`Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
`111 U.S. 53 (1884) ............................................................................ 6, 28
`Callaghan v. Myers,
`128 U.S. 617 (1888) .............................................................................. 51
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 9 of 99
`
`
`Carruth v. Easterling,
`247 Miss. 364 (1963) ............................................................................ 47
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .............................................................................. 14
`City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C.,
`569 U.S. 290 (2013) .............................................................................. 15
`Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,
`490 U.S. 730 (1989) ........................................................................ 54, 55
`Coykendall v. Eaton,
`1869 WL 5957 (N.Y. Gen. Term. 1869) ................................................ 50
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) .............................................................................. 32
`Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .............................................................................. 21
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`664 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ..................................................... 45
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ........................................................................ 27, 33
`Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) .............................................................................. 24
`Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.,
`392 U.S. 390 (1968) .............................................................................. 37
`Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal,
`286 U.S. 123 (1932) .............................................................................. 32
`Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC,
`150 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................... 15
`Fox v. Clinton,
`684 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .......................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 10 of 99
`
`
`Gerlach-Barklow Co. v. Morris & Bendien,
`23 F.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1927) .................................................................... 51
`Golan v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 302 (2012) .............................................................................. 32
`Goldstein v. California,
`412 U.S. 546, 561 (1973) ................................................................ 37, 39
`Gonzales v. Oregon,
`546 U.S. 243 (2006) .............................................................................. 16
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) .......................................................................... 30
`Griffin v. Sheeran,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................... 45
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .............................................................................. 33
`Holland v. Nat'l Mining Ass'n,
`309 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .............................................................. 12
`Horror Inc. v. Miller,
`15 F.4th 232 (2d Cir. 2021) ............................................................ 53, 54
`Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons,
`Inc., 104 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1939) ................................................... 46, 51
`In re C Tek Software, Inc.,
`127 B.R. 501 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1991) ..................................................... 49
`In re Trade-Mark Cases,
`100 U.S. 82 (1879) .................................................................... 5, 6, 7, 28
`Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
`613 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ............................................................ 12
`Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist.,
`635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 41
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 11 of 99
`
`
`King v. Burwell,
`576 U.S. 473 (2015) .............................................................................. 16
`Marshall Cnty. Health Care Auth. v. Shalala,
`988 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ............................................................ 20
`Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby,
`726 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 25
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1954) ........................................................................ 34, 39
`Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth.,
`566 U.S. 449 (2012) .............................................................................. 23
`Occidental Eng'g Co. v. I.N.S.,
`753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................ 14
`Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc.,
`684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir. 1982) .............................................................. 27
`Phillips v. Washington Legal Found.,
`524 U.S. 156 (1998) .............................................................................. 48
`PhotoCure ASA v. Kappos,
`603 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................ 19
`Pierson v. Post,
`1805 WL 781 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) ....................................................... 51
`Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. of Ohio v. Betts,
`492 U.S. 158 (1989) .............................................................................. 14
`Roulo v. Russ Berrie & Co., Inc.,
`886 F.2d 931 (7th Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 28
`S. California Edison Co. v. FERC,
`195 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 22, 24
`Seeger v. United States Dep't of,
`Def., 306 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2018) .......................................... 2, 12
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 12 of 99
`
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) .............................................................................. 16
`Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
`544 U.S. 228 (2005) .............................................................................. 14
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) .............................................................................. 30
`State of Nebraska v. State of Iowa,
`143 U.S. 359 (1892) .............................................................................. 48
`Thaler v. Perlmutter, CV 22-1564 (BAH),
`2023 WL 5333236 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023) ........................................... iii
`Twentieth Century Music Corp.,
`422 U.S. ................................................................................................ 33
`U.S. Home Corp. v. R.A. Kot Homes, Inc.,
`563 F. Supp. 2d 971 (D. Minn. 2008) ................................................... 46
`Urantia Found. v. Kristen Maaherra,
`114 F.3d ................................................................................................ 40
`W. Virginia v. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`597 U.S. 697 (2022) .............................................................................. 16
`Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
`328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 25
`Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson,
`306 U.S. 30 (1939) ................................................................................ 32
`Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith,
`449 U.S. 155 (1980) .............................................................................. 48
`Wihtol v. Wells,
`231 F.2d 550 (7th Cir. 1956) ................................................................ 27
`Statutes
`17 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................. 23, 56
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 13 of 99
`
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) .......................................................................... 6, 21, 22
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................... 22
`17 U.S.C. § 201 ........................................................................................ 52
`17 U.S.C. § 201(b) .................................................................................... 25
`17 U.S.C. § 203 ........................................................................................ 25
`17 U.S.C. § 204(a) .................................................................................... 45
`17 U.S.C. § 301(a) .................................................................................... 22
`17 U.S.C. § 302(c) .............................................................................. 24, 25
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 .................................................................................. 2, 11
`5 U.S.C. § 702 .......................................................................................... 12
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .......................................................................................... 19
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ...................................................................................... 21
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D) ..................................................................... 13, 14
` Other Authorities
`Epstein, Possession as the Root of Title, 13 Georgia Law Review 1221
`(1979) .................................................................................................... 50
`Ginsburg, A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Prop. in Revolutionary
`France & Am.,A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Prop. in
`Revolutionary France & Am., 64 Tul. L. Rev. 991 (1990) ................... 34
`H.R. REP. No. 2222 ................................................................................. 35
`H.R. REP. No. 94-1476, at 51 ........................................................ 7, 36, 38
`Marinotti, Possessing Intangibles, 116 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1227 (2022) . 49, 50
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 14 of 99
`
`
`Merrill, Accession & Original Ownership,Accession & Original
`Ownership, 1 J. Legal Analysis 459 (2009) ......................................... 47
`Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and
`ComputerGenerated Works: Is Anything New Since Contu?, 106 Harv.
`L. Rev. 977, 1069-70 (1993)................................................ 17, 18, 30, 31
`Sterk, Rhetoric & Reality in Copyright Law,Rhetoric & Reality in
`Copyright Law, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 1197 (1996) ..................................... 33
`Tehranian, Copyright's Male Gaze: Authorship & Inequality in A
`Panoptic World,Copyright's Male Gaze: Authorship & Inequality in A
`Panoptic World, 41 Harv. J.L. & Gender 343 (2018) .......................... 57
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 15 of 99
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`This case presents a relatively straightforward question: is a
`
`creative work generated by an artificial intelligence system in the
`
`absence of a direct contribution by a traditional human author
`
`copyrightable. The Copyright Office refused to register a copyright in an
`
`artwork created by Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI system, despite him being
`
`its creator and user.
`
`
`
`Nothing in the Copyright Act requires human creation. Instead, it
`
`explicitly allows for non-human authors. Corporations have been
`
`authors for over a hundred years. Despite this, the Copyright Office
`
`relies on dicta from a bevy of cases that pre-date the possibility of
`
`artificial intelligence having the capability to create copyrightable
`
`works.
`
`
`
`The Copyright Office justifies this, in part, with an appeal to the
`
`purpose of copyright, to protect authors, but that is not the purpose of
`
`copyright. It has been a common refrain in the Supreme Court that
`
`helping authors is a mere means to an end, which is to provide
`
`copyrighted works to the public. Nothing would greater incentivize the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 16 of 99
`
`
`growth of creative works available and benefit the public than ensuring
`
`copyright law protects works made using AI systems.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`The District Court had proper jurisdiction over the instant action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review an agency action pursuant to the APA.
`
`Seeger v. United States Dep't of Def., 306 F. Supp. 3d 265, 276 (D.D.C.
`
`2018).
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This
`
`appeal is from a final order or judgment that disposes of all parties’
`
`claims, which the district court entered on August 18, 2023. Plaintiffs-
`
`appellants’ timely notice of appeal was filed on October 11, 2023, within
`
`sixty days of the district court’s memorandum opinion and order.
`
`III.
`
` STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1. Whether the district court erred by granting the Copyright
`
`Office’s summary judgment motion and denying Stephen
`
`Thaler’s summary judgment motion based on its determination
`
`that works created by an AI system are not copyrightable.
`
`IV. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 17 of 99
`
`
`
`
`All applicable statutory and regulatory provisions are reproduced
`
`in the Addendum to this brief.
`
`V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant (“Dr. Thaler”) appeals from: (1) the Judgment
`
`entered on August 18, 2023 (APPX 184) and (2) the Memorandum
`
`Opinion dated August 18, 2023 (APPX 185) denying Dr. Thaler’s motion
`
`for summary judgment and granting the U.S. Copyright Office’s motion
`
`for summary judgment. (APPX 185).
`
`Plaintiff Dr. Stephen Thaler develops, owns, and applies AI
`
`systems capable of generating creative output including visual art in
`
`the absence of a direct contribution from a traditional human author
`
`(“AI-Generated Works”). (APPX 023, ¶ 14.) The specific visual art at
`
`issue here would undoubtably qualify for copyright protection had it
`
`been made directly and solely by Dr. Thaler without any computer
`
`assistance. (APPX 023, ¶ 14.)
`
`Plaintiff’s AI system produced a two-dimensional artwork (the
`
`“Work”) titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 18 of 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AR0031.
`
`On November 3, 2018, Dr. Thaler filed an application (#1-
`
`7100387071) to register the work with the United States Copyright
`
`Office. APPX 042.
`
`In the application, Dr. Thaler identified the author of the Work as
`
`the “Creativity Machine,” Id. At APPX 043. Dr. Thaler also listed
`
`himself as the “Copyright Claimant.” Id. He also included a transfer
`
`statement labelled “Ownership of the Machine.” Id.
`
`Plaintiff separately noted in the application that the Work was
`
`autonomously 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 19 of 99
`
`
`On August 12, 2019, the Copyright Office refused to register the
`
`copyright. The Copyright Office wrote, “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.’” APPX 045.1 However, Dr. Thaler’s
`
`entitlement to any copyright in the work remained unaddressed. See id.
`
`Thus, Dr. Thaler filed a request for reconsideration to the
`
`Copyright Office on September 23, 2019. APPX 049. Appellant argued
`
`that the Copyright Office lacked the legal basis to deny copyright in an
`
`AI-Generated Work. Id.
`
`The Copyright Office denied the request for reconsideration, based
`
`on its prior determination that copyright only protects “the fruits of
`
`intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind,”
`
`relying on In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). APPX 059.
`
`The Copyright Office argued 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.
`
`
`1 The Copyright’s Office view that there is a “Human Authorship
`Requirement” is located in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office
`Practices (“Compendium”) § 306.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 20 of 99
`
`
`Id. The Copyright Office 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.
`
`Dr. Thaler filed a second request for reconsideration with the
`
`Copyright Office on May 27, 2020. APPX 063. The Copyright Office
`
`denied this request on February 14, 2022. APPX 071. The Copyright
`
`Office accepted that the Work was “autonomously created by artificial
`
`intelligence without any creative contribution from a human actor.”
`
`APPX 072. Citing again to In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, the
`
`Copyright Office stated that Plaintiff had failed to either provide
`
`evidence that the Work is the product of human authorship or convince
`
`the Copyright Office to “depart from a century of copyright
`
`jurisprudence.” APPX 073. Since there was no issue of human author
`
`involvement, the Copyright Office limited its review to whether the
`
`human authorship requirement was unconstitutional and unsupported
`
`by case law. See APPX 071-077.
`
`The Copyright Office argued that the phrase “original work of
`
`authorship” was “purposefully left undefined” by Congress in order to
`
`“incorporate without change the standard of originality established by
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 21 of 99
`
`
`the courts under the [1909] copyright statute[,]” citing to H.R. Rep. No.
`
`94-1476, at 51 (1976). APPX 073-074. The Copyright Office further
`
`stated that the Copyright 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 Copyright Office cited Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co., once
`
`more, claiming that it stood for the proposition that copyright was
`
`afforded to photography because photographs are “representatives of
`
`original intellectual conceptions of [an] author,” observing that the
`
`court referred to “authors” as human. APPX 074. The Copyright Office
`
`also pointed to Mazer v. Stein, arguing that the Supreme Court defined
`
`an author as someone who “may be viewed as an individual who writes
`
`an original composition.” APPX 074.
`
`Despite its various arguments, the Copyright Office also admitted
`
`that it did not know if a court ever 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. APPX 073.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 22 of 99
`
`
`The Copyright Office also relied on the National Commission on
`
`New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) as support of
`
`its position, despite CONTU’s explicit refusal to address the
`
`copyrightability of AI-Generated Works given that CONTU considered
`
`such works technologically impossible at the time. In its 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 then needed. APPX 075. 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. APPX 075.
`
`Finally, the Copyright Office cited to “a recent report from the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark 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.” APPX 076.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 23 of 99
`
`
`After the Copyright Office made it clear that its decision was final,
`
`Thaler commenced an action for review of the agency action in the
`
`District Court for the District of Columbia, filing a complaint on June 2,
`
`2022. (Docket No. 1; APPX 001). On June 3, 2022, Thaler filed a
`
`corrected complaint. (Docket No. 2-1; APPX 020). On January 10, 2023,
`
`Dr. Thaler filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 16; APPX
`
`078) On February 7, 2023 the Copyright Office filed its opposition and
`
`cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 17; APPX 116).
`
`Afterward, Dr. Thaler filed a reply in opposition on March 7, 2023, and
`
`the Copyright Office filed its reply on April 5, 2023. (Docket Nos. 18 and
`
`21; APPX 150 and APPX 169)
`
`Though Thaler requested an oral argument, the district court
`
`decided that it was unnecessary and issued an order and memorandum
`
`of opinion on August 18, 2023 denying Thaler’s motion for summary
`
`judgment and granting Copyright Office’s motion for summary
`
`judgment. The Court based its decision on its framing of the question at
`
`issue: “the single legal question presented here is whether a work
`
`generated autonomously by a computer falls under the protection of
`
`copyright law upon its creation.” APPX 190. The Court concluded that,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5233 Document #2036881 Filed: 01/22/2024 Page 24 of 99
`
`
`“United States copyright law protects only works of human creation.”
`
`APPX 191. Following this determination, Thaler timely filed a notice of
`
`appeal.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The Copyright Act (the “Act”) entitles Dr. Thaler to a copyright in
`
`his AI-Generated Work. No language in the Act creates a Human
`
`Authorship Requirement. To the contrary, non-human authorship has
`
`been a fixture of American copyright law for more than a century and
`
`there is no requirement to identify a