Advisedwang summarizes it below, but here is the key line from the ruling: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-par

Advisedwang summarizes it below, but here is the key line from the ruling: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... "the author of the Work was identified as the “Creativity Machine,” with Thaler listed as the claimant alongside a transfer statement: “ownership of the machine.” USCO is maintaining that computers/AI cannot hold copyright, only humans can. If Thaler were to submit again with his own name, I wholeheartedly expect that they would accept it as long as they have no reason to believe it's been previously copyrighted or is not "sufficiently creative". Is that copyright legitimate? Someone would have to then challenge it in court!