Yes and the ruling GP is citing is basically about that scenario but with a computer instead of a monkey. The monkey pressed the buttons on the camera without

Yes and the ruling GP is citing is basically about that scenario but with a computer instead of a monkey. The monkey pressed the buttons on the camera without human direction, and so was the "author". Since the monkey is not a human, no copyright existed. In this case, the human claims the computer had no input at all, it did it by itself, hence no copyright. However we all know that computers can't do things by themselves in the same way as a monkey. The USCO accepts whatever explanation you give them though, so they had to go by the stated facts. In any case where the human operator of the computer actually does want copyright of the images, all they have to do is say "I setup the computer to generate the images" and they will own the copyright.