What is the actual ruling here? Is it that the work can't be protected by copyright at all "because no human was involved in its creation" or just that copyrigh

What is the actual ruling here? Is it that the work can't be protected by copyright at all "because no human was involved in its creation" or just that copyright can't be assigned to the model itself? The headline implies it's the former, then the article itself implies it's the latter, and then you get this segment that implies the former presented as making a case for the latter: > The Copyright Office says that it “turns on a single question: Did the Office act reasonably and consistently with the law when it refused to extend copyright protection to a visual work the plaintiff represented was created without any human involvement? The answer is yes.” This article is really poorly written. I guess they wanted the flashy headline?