This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a computer scientist who creates and works with artificial intelligence systems. P invented the Creativity Machine. P submitted a copyright registration application for an artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise.' P listed the 'Author' of that work as the 'Creativity Machine.' In the section labeled 'Author Created,' P wrote '2-D artwork, Created autonomously by machine.' D denied the application because 'a human being did not create the work.' The letter cited the Supreme Court's decision in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). In seeking reconsideration, P argued that 'the Human Authorship Requirement is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law' and judicial opinions 'from the Gilded Age' could not settle the question of whether computer-generated works are copyrightable today. The Registration Program again denied P's application because the work lacked 'sufficient creative input or intervention from a human author.' In his request for reconsideration, P reaffirmed that 'the present submission lacks traditional human authorship-it was autonomously generated by an AI.' P then argued he should own the copyright under the work-made-for-hire doctrine because 'non-human, artificial persons such as companies can already be authors under this doctrine.' The Review Board affirmed the denial obased on the human-authorship requirement. It rejected P's argument that the work was made for hire on the ground that there was no contract between P and the Creativity Machine. P sought review in the District Court. P claimed for the first time that the work is copyrightable because P 'provided instructions and directed his AI.' The district court concluded that 'human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright,' and held that P could not rely on the work-made-for-hire provision because that provision 'presupposes that an interest exists to be claimed.' The 'image autonomously generated' was not such an interest because it 'was never eligible for copyright,' so the Machine had no copyright to transfer to P, even if he were the Creativity Machine's employer. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.