One thing I notice in approaching this issue as an attorney vs the way I see others discuss it is that it's not sufficient to just characterize things a certain

One thing I notice in approaching this issue as an attorney vs the way I see others discuss it is that it's not sufficient to just characterize things a certain way on a facial level. It's not convincing to a court or the copyright office to just call it "AI tooling", an argument needs to made w/r/t the facts of the situation, how these models' outputs differ from existing machine-driven processes (like various photoshop tools). It's in this nuance that the answer lies, and it's not in surface-level equivocation or appeals to "creativity". Like, the issue for the copyright office isn't that artists are whining that it's not "art", it's that copyright law only protects human expressions.