This just seems clearly false. Jackson Pollock had copyright in his paintings, even though he did not personally apply the paint to the canvas and his creative process left him no control over where exactly it would go. I understand that the Copyright Office has said things that imply otherwise, but I really think these are going to be overturned the instant that someone with enough money to fund the lawsuit is affected.

I've only seen the Pollock movie but he definitely dripped the paint himself. Are you confusing Pollock with someone else like Sol LeWitt?