>While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not b

>While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not based on the fact that the work was created using AI. The decision was based on the fact that her edits were not considered to be original enough to warrant a copyright. I'm well aware, and that's also exactly what I said... Yeah, it's no surprise that her attorney characterizes it in the exact fashion that should get her a copyright, but I completely disagree with the nature of those characterizations and I don't think the facts support such a reading. Hard to say it's doing "exactly as it is programmed to" when the same exact inputs will result in completely different outputs each time and in a way that's not predictable as opposed to using a tool that adds in randomization (like a noise generator, to give an image grain, for example).