I'm trying to reason this through. I'm ignoring established laws and just trying to think through various aspects. If I run a company and pay a designer to wor

I'm trying to reason this through. I'm ignoring established laws and just trying to think through various aspects. If I run a company and pay a designer to work for me and we are in a meeting, I say "these colors established in that pattern following the art patterns of these 3rd party artists...", clearly the art the designer makes based strictly on those requirements belongs to the company. Doesn't belong to me either, because I may own the company but the company pays both of us, so the company owns the art. Me and an art friend are in a bar, and I say "these colors established in that pattern following the art patterns of these 3rd party artists...". The friend makes an original work based specifically on my comments. Clearly the friend owns the art they generated. I setup stable diffusion 1.5 running on automatik1111 on my local machine. (For the sake of argument) the license of both SD1.5 and automatik1111 pass all rights to generated art to me, the user. I provide a description "these colors established in that pattern following the art patterns of these 3rd party artists..." and I then pick from several dozen images that are generated. Ok so the first two situations are clearly defined in law. The third situation is not super nebulous since the copyrights clearly pass ownership to any generated work to me, the prompt creator. (Specifically not getting into rights of original artists used to train SD for this example). One step further, I use several pieces of art generated by SD based on my prompts and then use those to create a fundamentally different piece of art in photoshop by combining not only the SD art but other publicly exhibited existing works. The final piece of art is substantially different enough from its source material that I maintain ownership under existing copyright laws/doctrine. Ok with that laid out, where precisely does fair use and copyright fall? Even if I use "illegally" generated original art, if I modify it enough to create a new use that is distinct from the original is that still illegal? Or do I have ownership?