You're referring to a Copyright Office administrative ruling. It's a pretty strange ruling at odds with precedent, and it has not been tested in court. Tradit

You're referring to a Copyright Office administrative ruling. It's a pretty strange ruling at odds with precedent, and it has not been tested in court. Traditionally all that's required for copyrightability is a "minimal creative spark", i.e. the barest evidence that some human creativity was involved in creating the work. There really hasn't traditionally been any lower bound on how "minimal" the "spark" need be -- flick a dot of paint at a canvas, snap a photo without looking at what you're photographing, it doesn't matter as long as a human initiated the work somehow. However, the Copyright Office contends that AI-generated text and images do not contain a minimal creative spark: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf This is obviously asinine. Typing in "a smiling dolphin" on Midjourney and getting an image of a smiling dolphin is clearly not a program "operat[ing] randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author". If our laws have meaning, it will be overruled in court. Of course, judges are also susceptible to the marketing-driven idea that Artificial Intelligence is a separate being, a translucent stock photo robot with glowing blue wiring that thinks up ideas independently instead of software you must run with a creative input. So there's no guarantee sanity will prevail.