There was a statement on the prior thread that described the situation particularly well I'll reproduce it herein and link the original comment rather than tryi

There was a statement on the prior thread that described the situation particularly well I'll reproduce it herein and link the original comment rather than trying to better it. > The headline doesn’t seem to be what actually happened. The filer was arguing that the ai created the work on its own as a work for hire and thus the ai was the author with the computer scientist merely being the owner of the copyright as it was made for hire. I don’t think the argument that ai is a tool and the human operating it is the author was considered because the filer explicitly didn’t want to consider it. > In the review being appealed here https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... > It makes it clear that the computer scientist doing the filing was trying to argue this was a work made for hire with the author being the computer. They wanted to argue that copyright can be assigned to non humans, but that just isn’t how the law works. The summary makes it clear early that it’s just taking their word that the work had no human input and was thus purely the creation of the computer. This seems to be a a better article https://www.millernash.com/industry-news/paradise-denied-copyright-or-not-in-ai-generated-images https://www.millernash.com/industry-news/paradise-denied-cop... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37189599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37189599 In short A: Computer generated efforts virtually certainly qualify for copyright. B: Non-artists can in fact iterate and modify work not just randomly generate shit. C: This will virtually certainly get much better over time. You will still get much better work out of a professional who can both utilize such tools when desired, and actually create not just copy or prompt art. This thesis is supportable but we shouldn't build it on sand lest it look more vulnerable than it is.