A small change in art is considered materially different, isn’t it? We don’t charge artists for making similar art inspired by others. Combine that with ruling

A small change in art is considered materially different, isn’t it? We don’t charge artists for making similar art inspired by others. Combine that with rulings in other areas of IP law, such as the patent office ruling that an inventor must be a human and AI cannot be assigned IP rights[1], I think that would lead towards DALL-E created art being assigned to the human who prompted the tool for art or the creator of the tool. Compare this to software when you can be sued for using the same pieces of code, and that seems to be the root cause for the difference [1] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/13/artificial-intelligence-cant-patent-inventions/id=123226/# https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/13/artificial-intelligenc...