Exercise 2: Why Fully AI-Generated Images Aren't Copyrightable — Possible Solution
====================================================================

THE RULE, PER THIS CHAPTER
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "under current U.S. law... [content is] not
[copyrightable] without sufficient human creative authorship," a
position confirmed by the courts in Thaler v. Perlmutter, which upheld
the Copyright Office's refusal to register a fully AI-generated image
with no claimed human author.

THE CONNECTION BACK TO CHAPTER 1
------------------------------
Per this chapter's own tip-box, "U.S. copyright law has long required
a human author - a requirement that predates AI entirely." Chapter 1
established that copyright protects original, creative EXPRESSION, and
attaches automatically the moment a work is fixed by its creator. That
automatic-attachment framework has always implicitly assumed a human
creator doing the fixing and the creating - Chapter 1 never
contemplated (because it didn't need to, for the ordinary human-
authored works it was describing) a scenario where the "creator" isn't
a person capable of legal authorship in the first place.

WHY A FULLY AI-GENERATED IMAGE FAILS THIS REQUIREMENT
------------------------------
An image generated purely by an AI system, with no human contributing
meaningful creative judgment to what was produced, has no human author
in the sense Chapter 1's framework (and the law generally) requires.
Per this chapter, such content "doesn't meet that requirement and
isn't copyrightable at all - leaving it, functionally, without an
owner in the way a human-authored work automatically has one per
Chapter 1's own automatic-copyright rule." Chapter 1's rule that
copyright attaches automatically on fixation implicitly assumes a
human doing the fixing; remove the human entirely from the creative
process and the rule has nothing to attach to.

WHY THIS ISN'T ABSOLUTE
------------------------------
Per this chapter, this only applies where there's no meaningful human
creative contribution - "where a human contributes sufficient,
genuinely creative selection, arrangement, or editing on top of
AI-generated raw material, that specific human contribution can itself
be copyrightable." The rule specifically targets the absence of human
authorship, not AI involvement generally.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It states the current rule and its real supporting case, explicitly
traces the human-authorship requirement back to an assumption baked
into Chapter 1's own automatic-copyright framework, and explains
precisely why a purely AI-generated work fails that assumption rather
than simply restating the rule without grounding it in the earlier
chapter's own material.