It is not, the filer here claimed no role in the creation except as the employer of the AI in a work for hire, and was attempting to overturn the Registrar of Copyrights determination that AI could not be an author and that a registration listing the AI as the author was facially invalid.

This case is fundamentally not about whether art in which AI is used as a tool by a human (even if the human role is entirely in programming the AI) is copyrightable as a work of the human, it is solely about whether a piece of software can be an author under copyright law, a very different question.