No that is not the logical take that is an extremely illogical extension of what was said. What was upheld was narrowly tailored in regards to copyright protect

No that is not the logical take that is an extremely illogical extension of what was said. What was upheld was narrowly tailored in regards to copyright protections. If you're saying that the AI created deep fake cannot be copyrighted well then you would be in line with what the court said. If you are saying that there is a logical extension that a machine created something at the behest of a human that that human cannot be held responsible for the creation, that is not what is being said at all. As a matter of fact there is a long history of things and not being able to be copyrighted but people can still be held criminally liable for.