It seems clear to me that modern "AI" Devices and algorithms are not "Persons". The copyright office would surely have accepted it if he had put down "Creativit

It seems clear to me that modern "AI" Devices and algorithms are not "Persons". The copyright office would surely have accepted it if he had put down "Creativity Machine" as the /medium/, but the author is a legal person or persons (incl. pseudononymous persons, such as corporations [1]) . What would it mean to assign the copyright to "Creativity Machine"? It can't make any decisions or enter into binding legal contracts. Law is by and for persons, and there's been no movement to grant Personhood to the very limited constructs we're calling "AI" right now. I will be first in line to argue for Personhood for actual artificial intelligence, but this ain't it. [1] This is my personal pet peeve - "Corporate Personhood", like explored in "Citizens United", means that corporations are pseudononyms for a group of people, and if it would be legal an individual to do, it's legal for a corporation unless the law specifically prohibits it.