I would be fine to include more inclusive language, except that I want to be in line with the wording the US Copyright Office uses, as a major goal of this policy is to ensure that every contribution is copyrightable. They specifically use the word human, and go so far as to say that it is only human authorship that can make something copyrightable.

There was a landmark case where a monkey took a selfie, and the courts decided that the picture could not be copyrighted. In the court’s decision, again, it’s specifically “human” authorship that was the requirement for copyright.

The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.

…

Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.

- https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf

In my opinion, “person” would be a better term to use, since the personhood of the author is really what matters, but since this is meant to provide legal protection, I’m pushed toward the term “human”. Also, “person” could be confused with the concept of a “legal person”, which includes corporations. A corporation itself cannot be an author, but it can own copyrights.

Maybe I should add this to a portion near the bottom of the page to provide the reasoning behind sticking to the term, despite the desire to be inclusive.