Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheeHeadAche t1_jab88er wrote

From the court ruling cited on this specific case:

> In cases where non-human authorship is claimed, appellate courts have found that copyright does not protect the alleged creations. For example, the Ninth Circuit held that a book containing words “‘authored’ by non-human spiritual beings” can only gain copyright protection if there is “human selection and arrangement of the revelations.” Urantia Found. v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 957–59 (9th Cir. 1997). The Urantia court held that “some element of human creativity must have occurred in order for the Book to be copyrightable” because “it is not creations of divine beings that the copyright laws were intended to protect.”

2

gurenkagurenda t1_jabfzu8 wrote

To clarify, this is not a court ruling. They’re citing court rulings, but the US Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

5

TheeHeadAche t1_jabg4ih wrote

Good clarification. I’ll edit to reflect this fact

2