It seems the more interesting legal question is not regarding input, but whom owns the copyrights of the output, if any. Interesting article: https://www.techn

It seems the more interesting legal question is not regarding input, but whom owns the copyrights of the output, if any. Interesting article: https://www.technollama.co.uk/dall%C2%B7e-goes-commercial-but-what-about-copyright https://www.technollama.co.uk/dall%C2%B7e-goes-commercial-bu... If I interpret that article correctly, at least Dall-e does not claim copyright on the generation nor does it grant it to the person writing the prompt. The copyright question seems entirely unanswered. Perhaps that should be codified in law explicitly: AI generated art cannot be copyrighted. If it was created from the collective input of humanity (unasked), its output may as well benefit all of humanity as well. It's hard to make the case that somebody writing a prompt deserves full copyright protection. Even if so, just add one word and one can claim it's once again an "original". Not respecting AI copyrights would also help protect the vast area of commercial art, as it lowers its value if it cannot be legally protected. This could get hairy though, because what happens if you take AI output as input and then start manually tweaking/editing it. It would then be a mixed AI/human works.