> I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. Here's

> I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. Here's a point of view on the difference between painters and everyone else: everyone else lives in the world and deals with its realities, but bonafide painters try to paint the world the way they wish it worked. Some even live the world the way they wish it worked, even when it doesn't make sense (like in terms of an objective reality), as long as they're alive they can do their thing and they can prove that something is possible, even if impracticable. This isn't a bad thing. If logical means, "the way orwin wants the world to work," then sure. You're doing the painter thing in the tech world. You said you want the copyright to be this way and the way things to work to be that way. If you want, you can write a license on a model that maybe you trained on all public domain data, and that the license says all the things it makes are also public domain, and maybe people go along and respect that license. This can all coexist with other stuff, it can be real. It just doesn't mean it makes sense. Just because something happens doesn't mean it makes sense. Another way I've heard this put is, feelings that are more strongly felt are not more valid. That said, in my world, I know people try to pitch "give me a $25,000 grant to write a license," instead of engaging with the core creative part of the RFP, and they don't get the grant. There is little appetite for the painter's way of doing things in the tech world. That's a bad thing but it's also true.