The reasoning in the ruling is a bit different: copyright was invented to give humans a financial incentive to create art. Machines need no incentive, so they d

The reasoning in the ruling is a bit different: copyright was invented to give humans a financial incentive to create art. Machines need no incentive, so they do not need copyright :) So, if the basic distinction here is: - if AI can create something all by itself, then it is not copyrightable (due to "machines need no incentive" rule) - if AI still needs human help, then it is just a tool (like a brush, or computer with Photoshop installed), and the human is the real author. It's not just about an "editorial process" - book editors do not have any copyright even after they fix hundreds of typos and grammar mistakes of the original author. Also, the plaintiff is making contradictory claims: when applying for copyright he said that AI was fully autonomous, but then, in the lawsuit he tries to change his story and say that his role in creating the piece of art was crucial. Probably just desperately fighting to make any money from this.