AI Generated Art Not Copyrightable

In the "A Recent Entrance to Paradise" case SR # 1-7100387071, the Copyright Review Board reiterated that copyright authorship must be human.  

"The Court has continued to articulate the nexus between the human mind and creative expression as a prerequisite for copyright protection. In Mazer v. Stein, the Court cited Burrow-Giles for the proposition that a work “must be original, that is, the author’s tangible expression of his ideas.” 347 U.S. 201, 214 (1954). And in Goldstein v. California, the Court again cited Burrow-Giles for the proposition that “[w]hile an ‘author’ may be viewed as an individual who writes an original composition, the term in its constitutional sense, has been construed to mean an ‘originator,’ ‘he to whom anything owes its origin.’” 412 U.S. 546, 561 (1973). The Office is compelled to follow Supreme Court precedent, which makes human authorship an essential element of copyright protection."  

See https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf

An example of AI generated art that is in the public domain.  

Thus, the copyright office is treating AI art the same as "monkey with camera" which is also in the public domain.  See Naruto v. David Slater et al.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

The 9th Circuit held that although monkeys have Constitutional standing under Article III, they do not have standing under the copyright act.  

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf