This decision is completely wrongheaded, because AI is making a mash-up out of works which are copyrighted. Works produced by AI are copyrightable, just not ne

This decision is completely wrongheaded, because AI is making a mash-up out of works which are copyrighted. Works produced by AI are copyrightable, just not newly copyrightable the agent who is executing the AI. If we could identify the "bill of materials" (specimens of training data which were relevant to the generation of a given image) then we could apply to it copyright notice consisting of the catenation of the individual copyright notices. I think that if an artist operates a purely local model, and trains it only on their own art, then the result should absolutely by copyrightable by that artist. It's no different from a binary executable being your copyright if you built it from sources that are your copyright. We don't squabble about compilers not being human.