That’s obviously very different. The contributions of the AI processing my phone camera does is not significant, and can be substituted relatively easily with P

That’s obviously very different. The contributions of the AI processing my phone camera does is not significant, and can be substituted relatively easily with Photoshop or similar software. It’s just a convenience feature. Dall-E is the complete opposite. My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work. > If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox. Not sure how this contradicts my point. Nobody “owns” that mountain, so nobody could call your photo of it a derivative work. If you take a photo of a frame of a movie, then who owns the rights to that photo? It’s not a raw frame, it’s a photo of a screen. Does that mean you didn’t just steal someone’s IP? These questions need answers, and copyright laws try to answer them in as fair a way as possible. Dall E raises new questions, and thus we need to update copyright laws with new answers. My personal view is that obtaining licensing for every single work used to train the model is impossible. So instead of simply making this type of AI research illegal, the fairest solution is to put that model into the public domain. There are still financial incentives to perform this research, as the discoveries could be used later to train a commercial model with proper licensing.