Forming a prompt technically is a form of creative work too. > In the Copyright Office’s view, Midjourney didn’t offer its human users enough control over the

Forming a prompt technically is a form of creative work too. > In the Copyright Office’s view, Midjourney didn’t offer its human users enough control over the artistic process A lot of image synthesis does though. Perhaps the decision could be questioned. What if Midjourney suddenly exposes more parameters for generation? I really think it could get harder for artists though. Especially for quick sketches AI is a powerful tool where you formerly perhaps commissioned it to a professional. Technical draftsman too, but only to a lesser degree. But on the other hand it is still limited as well. Concepts must be trained and the process is still very work intensive. Sure, you can auto-tag thousands of images and try to generate some fitting pictures. But real quality data sets still need careful curation. > Patents under AI-IP would last shorter than traditional patents and possibly give share to AI model developers or training data owners. The would make huge data accumulation even more worthwhile. I don't think this is a good idea. It would repeat the mistakes of the old copyright law, where copyright accumulates at certain players. That might be good for lawyers, but won't help any artist or content creator. > Dodging the issue by issuing a blanket ban on AI-generated applications probably isn’t the answer. I don't think there is any legal justification for this. There doesn't have to be in a democracy, but I doubt it would be democratically legitimized either. > Copyright-free AI output might inundate the world and drown out traditional, human-made content. I think this is a strong claim.