Copyright attaches to creative expression. Your work is not creative. And yet, Damien Hirst and "his" spin art created by his minions. There are assorted exam

Copyright attaches to creative expression. Your work is not creative. And yet, Damien Hirst and "his" spin art created by his minions. There are assorted examples of works created through some process, with varying degrees of human intervention once the process is running. I have to believe that there is some path to creating a program that generates text such that the results would be considered art and as such protected by copyright. The key to this would be, sadly, in what way Colour was applied. You can't just run the the damn code. Perhaps if iterations of the program were driven by the random activities of people passing through Times Square and you attached some suitable art theoretic narrative to the whole thing. My complaint is not that people cannot get away with programs that allow them to copyright everything, but that the circumstances that allow for copyright at all allow for some pretty arbitrary things. (See, again, Damien Hirst, and his Crystal Skull, and an artist named Cartrain.)