Suppose you wrote this AI yourself, and you trained it on data you own. Does it change anything? It makes no sense that because there is an AI in the middle, th

Suppose you wrote this AI yourself, and you trained it on data you own. Does it change anything? It makes no sense that because there is an AI in the middle, that you lose copyright over the output. What if you trained it on public domain data? I think, in the case of an AI without rights being the upstream of a piece of work (and no other licensing issues with the owner of the AI), the next proximate entity to the work owns the rights, so it would be the author/curator, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter how little they did. It's that they did something and nobody else is claiming rights. There is no point referring back to a world where only humans are interacting with each other. It's a dangerous precedent to say that AI output receives no copyright, because it is the same as what you're implying, that AI is not a tool, but an entity that siphoned off some of the rights, like maybe a child or a slave. If the USCO wants to declare that then they should do so, otherwise the case is wrongly decided and needs to go in front of a more intelligent judge.