This would be relevant to a discussion about using AI to make decisions with that have ethical implications. But this thread is not about the ethical consequenc

This would be relevant to a discussion about using AI to make decisions with that have ethical implications. But this thread is not about the ethical consequences of automated decision making, it's about property rights. If you produced a copyrighted piece of work, and I saw it with my eyeballs, and subsequently went on to produce my own work having been influenced by your work on some level, why should that be any different than using a computer to perform some portion of that process? Or perhaps more specifically, what copyright claim would you expect to have on my future thoughts? The particular situation here is somewhat novel (with AI content generation being involved), but the fundamental legal question being asked isn't new at all. Derivative work is a very well established component of our legal copyright framework. If I paint a portrait, I don't have to produce an exhaustive list of all paintings I've ever seen to ensure that the copyright holders of all other paintings have the opportunity to properly consider whether I've infringed their copyright. I don't have to do that when I write a line of code either. So why would it be any different if a computer algorithm is responsible for some portion of the content generation?