I think we just have to talk about the "Monkey Selfie Copyright Dispute" (2011-2018) - details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispu

I think we just have to talk about the "Monkey Selfie Copyright Dispute" (2011-2018) - details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... While this case was partly about the question "can a Monkey own a copyright in a selfie it creates?", I think it got a lot of press because it was so obviously related to the case of AI-created art. If one non-human can get a copyright, why not another? The US Copyright office has shot them both down, on the grounds that only humans can get copyrights. In the monkey selfie case, the photographer set up the camera, which meant that there were some very abstract settings that involved a human. That wasn't enough to get a copyright. I think at least some hyperparameters would be similar - not really enough to justify creativity.