The Art Incarnate Evidence Archive

This archive exists for one reason: transparency.

On the right (or down below, if you’re on mobile), you’ll find a menu of exhibits. Each one expands to show a short summary, along with the option to open, read, or download the actual legal documents themselves.

What you see here are the original filings, refusals, appeals, and briefs that define Allen v. Perlmutter — the first federal case challenging the U.S. Copyright Office’s refusal to recognize AI-assisted art as human authorship.

The case centers on my work Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, a piece created through 624 conscious, creative decisions. It won first place at the Colorado State Fair Fine Arts Competition in 2022, judged by artists themselves. Yet the Copyright Office stripped me of authorship, declaring the work “authorless” simply because I used AI as one of my tools.

This archive shows the absurdity of that position, step by step.

  • In Exhibit A, the Office coined the phrase “appreciable AI material” — a term found nowhere in law.

  • By Exhibit E, they abandoned that language altogether, quietly replacing it with “traditional elements of authorship” — another phrase they invented from thin air.

  • By Exhibit G, my legal team exposed how unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious their approach truly is.

This is more than my fight. If the Copyright Office can strip me of authorship, then no creator using AI tools is safe. Writers, musicians, filmmakers, designers — all could see their work denied, not because it lacks creativity, but because the Office doesn’t approve of the tools they used.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to protect “authors” broadly, in order to promote progress. It did not empower an administrative office to rewrite that definition to exclude an entire generation of creators.

By publishing these documents here, unfiltered and in sequence, I want you to see the evidence for yourself. Read their words. Read mine. Read the motion for summary judgment. Then decide: who is really honoring the law, and who is making it up as they go?

This archive is not just about proving authorship of a single work. It’s about exposing how fragile creative rights become when institutions contract them beyond recognition — and why every conscious creator has a stake in this fight.

Welcome to the Evidence Archive.

The record speaks for itself.

^ Collapse_Menu ^
//: Exhibit A – First Refusal (USCO Initial Denial)

*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) initially refused registration of Théâtre D’opéra Spatial on the grounds that it contained “an appreciable amount of AI-generated material.” This phrase—never defined in law—became their catch-all to erase Jason Allen’s role as the creator. Despite Allen’s clear input of hundreds of prompts, artistic vision, and final decision-making, the Office dismissed his authorship as though the human role were irrelevant. This refusal marked the first time Allen’s authorship was formally stripped from him, setting the stage for a constitutional battle.
//: Exhibit B – First Reconsideration (Allen’s Appeal)

*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
Allen pushed back, filing his first reconsideration request. He explained in detail the human effort required: 624 iterative prompts, artistic refinement, and conscious curation. He clarified that AI was a tool, not an autonomous author. The reconsideration emphasized that authorship stems from human intention and decision-making, no different than a photographer directing a camera. Allen’s filing challenged the USCO’s unsupported assumption that AI outputs are “authorless.”
//: Exhibit C – USCO Response to First Reconsideration

*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
The USCO doubled down, rejecting Allen’s reconsideration. They repeated their mantra that the work lacked the “human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Notably, they failed to address Allen’s detailed descriptions of his creative process. By ignoring his role, the Office showed how arbitrary and capricious their position was: shifting the burden to technology rather than acknowledging human agency.
//: Exhibit D – Second Reconsideration (Allen’s Response)

*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
Undeterred, Allen filed a second reconsideration, providing further clarity and analogies. He pointed out that the law does not police methods of creation. Artists across history—from photographers to digital creators—have relied on tools, randomness, and machines without losing authorship. This filing highlighted the absurdity of treating AI differently, and warned that rejecting his authorship risked stifling innovation and misapplying copyright law itself.
//: Exhibit E – Final Refusal (USCO’s Last Word)

*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
The USCO issued its final refusal, affirming once more that Allen’s work was “uncopyrightable.” Unlike the first denial, however, the Office dropped the phrase “appreciable AI material” altogether—likely realizing how indefensible it was. Instead, they leaned vaguely on the notion of “traditional elements of authorship,” a concept they themselves invented with no grounding in statute. This contradiction showed their shifting, unstable logic.
//: Exhibit F – Filed Appeal (Federal Complaint)
*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
With no recourse inside the agency, Allen filed a federal lawsuit against the Register of Copyrights and the USCO. The complaint outlined the facts: Théâtre D’opéra Spatial was authored by Allen through a painstaking creative process, yet was arbitrarily denied copyright. It argued that the Office’s decision exceeded its statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and undermined the Constitution’s Copyright Clause. The filing also documented real-world harm: widespread infringement of the work online, with others claiming “no theft occurred” because the USCO had stripped Allen of authorship. This underscored how devastating the Office’s denial is—not just personally, but for all creators using AI tools.
//: Exhibit G – Motion for Summary Judgment (Allen’s Legal Offensive)
*<<click the image to access file>>*
Summary:
Allen’s legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, filed a powerful motion for summary judgment. The brief dismantles the USCO’s invented “traditional elements of authorship” test, showing it has no basis in law or precedent. It argues that authorship only requires a “spark of creativity,” something Allen contributed in abundance through his iterative prompting, curation, manual edits, and final artistic decisions. The brief draws parallels to photography, where courts long ago affirmed that human direction—even when mediated by a machine—meets the bar for copyright. It further argues that the Office’s test is unconstitutional, unlawfully narrowing the definition of “author” beyond what Congress or the courts ever intended. If accepted, the Office’s stance would mean no one could claim authorship of AI-assisted works—a catastrophic contraction of creative rights. The motion makes clear: Théâtre D’opéra Spatial is not only copyrightable, it proves why the law must evolve with technology to protect human creativity.

Subscribe To Our Mailing List

Join our list and be the first to know
when the gallery goes live!

You have successfully subscribed! Please check your email to verify your email address.