> Thaler then requested a reconsideration of the decision, arguing that the human authorship requirement would be contrary to the US Constitution and be unsuppo

> Thaler then requested a reconsideration of the decision, arguing that the human authorship requirement would be contrary to the US Constitution and be unsupported by either statute or case law. ... Feist v Rural? I know it's usually summarized as "sweat of the brow is not valid basis for copyright in the US", but it does this by arguing, as the head notes state: > Held: Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. It seems like a lot of the complaints here are against the reliance on 1800s-era cases, but it's the reality that even when modern copyright cases end up before SCOTUS, it all comes back to reaffirming those 1800s cases. (Baker v Seldon, 1880, featured heavily in Google v Oracle, decided 2021; similarly, Feist v Rural [1990] is basically going back and saying that the 1910s-era stuff makes the position clear).