Submitted by vadhavaniyafaijan t3_119xj76 in singularity
Comments
[deleted] t1_j9phf8s wrote
I think people are glossing over the editing part. Fixing the eyes, terrain, limbs, or modifying the colors counts as your property.
dasnihil t1_j9q43e6 wrote
monetizing and copyrighting art is where humanity went wrong and we'll fix it eventually by understanding art better.
rushmc1 t1_j9rjrvy wrote
Monetizing a lot of things that shouldn't be.
dasnihil t1_j9rnggq wrote
diamonds man.. fucking stone.
human enterprise is built on lies.
Ahaigh9877 t1_j9s4iwc wrote
As in, attaching value to something that's scarce? How do you stop people doing that?
dasnihil t1_j9s5ogi wrote
art is not scarce, stop trying to make it so. and the value i attach to it has nothing to do with money. it's a feeling.
turnip_burrito t1_j9s6v4x wrote
Art once was scarce in the past, but the problem is that we now have to adapt to a new reality where art is not scarce.
zero0n3 t1_j9slkze wrote
Art was never scarce. You’re just looking at specific mediums.
Mediums used to be scarce. Or I should say the mediums that can be stored and cataloged used to be scarce.
turnip_burrito t1_j9smktx wrote
Of course art was scarce. Now certain kinds of art are not, and some still are. All art requires time, energy, or mediums to produce and access. And new art of higher quality requires more time, energy, or materials. For some forms of art, these resources are plentiful, and for others these resources are still lacking.
Now the cost of all these things has fallen for various kinds of art. More paints, more paper, more instruments, more photographs, more people hours, more computing power, more broadcasting, more storage, etc. But if you want to see somebody perform (dance/sing for example) or paint in person, that is an example of art that scarce. Original physical art works are also scarce. As well as digital art made more to spec.
zero0n3 t1_j9sn6we wrote
No it doesn’t. You don’t get it.
Art was never scarce. Anyone and everyone makes art. Your 7 yr old telling you about his dream - art.
Art boils down to creative expression. The medium is what made it scarce in the past. No paper for that kid to draw on. No pen for the person wanting to write a story.
The only difference is there is now a medium that allows near instant transmission of that expression.
Definition btw:
> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
Hell, the person who designed your house created art.
turnip_burrito t1_j9snfcm wrote
>The medium is what made it scarce in the past.
>
>Art was never scarce.
Which is it?
And if I want to see someone perform in person, the access to see this is limited. The person only performs one time, and there are only so many seats. So this is an example of scarcity in art.
When I say art was or is scarce, I mean that there are forms of art that show scarcity. If you want to define all expression as art, then yeah there's no scarcity. But that's obviously not what most people mean by art.
zero0n3 t1_j9snlvx wrote
What don’t you get?
“Art” was always being created - we just don’t have a record of it. It was never scarce in the moment. It’s all around you.
What’s scarce is the medium people use to RECORD art.
It’s like my point keeps going right over your head.
turnip_burrito t1_j9so09d wrote
Your point is ridiculous. Okay, fine. Whatever. Art as a concept (*waves arms*) was never scarce. We'll go with your broad definition.
However, certain forms of art are absolutely scarce, have always been scarce, and now we're seeing the transition of the type of superficially impressive digital artwork from high scarcity to low scarcity.
Other kinds of art are still scarce: Handmade pots have a certain scarcity, performances, etc.
zero0n3 t1_j9so8ni wrote
Don’t argue with me argue with the dictionary.
Art is a fucking concept. Literally impossible without other concepts like “emotion” and “free will”.
Art isn’t just the painting storing a snapshot. It’s the moment itself. Experiencing it.
turnip_burrito t1_j9sohr2 wrote
I see now that you aren't addressing my point on scarcity and are just repeating that "all expression is art". Are you going to add anything new?
duboispourlhiver t1_j9sov5i wrote
You are talking about two different things, I think you are both right.
turnip_burrito t1_j9sp64j wrote
It's because the word "art" has several definitions used by different groups of people. It's not a word with one definition in reality.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uz5sb wrote
At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.
Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5jro wrote
You're clearly missing the point.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uyzk1 wrote
Humans have always, and will always have both emotion and free will. At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.
Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.
zero0n3 t1_j9vo41k wrote
I wasn’t the one saying art was scarce. I’m the one saying it was abundant! It’s the medium we record it on that has changed over time. The concept of art really hasn’t.
And even then it wasn’t scarce. Just look at the pyramids. Art everywhere from the writing to the presentation of mummies etc.
The emotion and free will piece was more conceptual. Like A species that doesn’t have emotions or free will wouldn’t be able to create or understand art at any level.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uzcdc wrote
Wrong. Just because you do not have a whole bunch of clay pots doesn't mean art was scarce. Time exists dude, it makes objects disappear and get buried if they're not maintained.
It appears you've confused the word 'scarce' with something else. Scarce by definition means there was not enough to meet the needs of the population. Or, demand was higher than something's availability.
Art has never had that problem. Art has been suppressed at various points throughout history, but it was still there, and meeting the public demand for it.
English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5wje wrote
Read the rest of the discussion. "Art" has several different definitions, and we were using two of those different definitions. This led to disagreement.
>English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.
Was that necessary? I see now that you're either a troll, or if not, a strange person. My written English is fine, and I'm sorry if you have trouble reading it.
dasnihil t1_j9sdrdu wrote
you're thinking of pretty paintings that wow you, I'm glad I'm getting desensitized to those. I've lived 30 something years with fixed ideas of what art is, I'm loving this new paradigm shift.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uyg0e wrote
No it wasn't. Art has existed in every human ever. What you lack is evidence of said art, but that's no evidence of anything.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5eum wrote
You have a particular definition of art that gives you this view. There are other definitions of art that will provide a different view.
KyleG t1_j9w6130 wrote
Actually independent creation doesn't violate copyright. That's a patent doctrine, which covers practical inventions, not creative expression.
[deleted] t1_j9ovy3l wrote
[deleted]
Silicon-Dreamer t1_j9ov5qx wrote
Despite arguing yes, AI art is art, it seems like a good idea to restrict its ability to be copyrighted because if it can, what is to stop an individual from renting a ton of GPUs, generating billions of "beautiful painting/character, 8k, etc etc" as a generic prompt, copyrighting them all, then threatening to sue anyone who generates anything that looks similar enough (in the eyes of a judge who doesn't know the technology well enough) to warrant a case?
qrayons t1_j9oxdpq wrote
Wow, crazy how similar our responses were, haha.
phoenixmusicman t1_j9qs7pt wrote
/u/silicon-dreamer sue this man
duboispourlhiver t1_j9oycol wrote
Interesting problem, but isn't this limited in the US by the registration fee required to get a copyright registration ?
Silicon-Dreamer t1_j9oz230 wrote
My apologies, good question. I'm looking at the copyright registration fees for those working in the US, and apparently they have separate fee categories for single works & groups of works. I'm not sure what is defined by "group" here, how many constitutes a group, if there's a limit on it or not.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9p0jkl wrote
I'm not aware of this ! If you find more info and share them I'd be happy ! Thank you
Deadboy00 t1_j9peorf wrote
Copyrights are automatically granted to the creator of the work. Registration provides an indexed record of your copyright so others can see it.
Using work generated by automated processes is a huge liability. Anyone can sue you and claim ownership.
Hack fraud creatives using this tech thinking they are getting away with something are going to have a very rude awakening when their clients/etc sue them.
KyleG t1_j9w6d9i wrote
Actually independent creation is a defense against a copyright claim. That means if you can prove that you use an AI to generate the art with your own prompt you would win against someone suing you for infringement because that's an independent creation. It is patent law where independent creation is not a defense.
Deadboy00 t1_j9w97y5 wrote
True...but that's not the central issue.
A copyright requires human authorship. Even if you could copyright a prompt (you can't), the generated output would not be.
Sure, they're the ongoing lawsuits against ai firms that use copyrighted works to generate their own product. Regardless of the side you wish to come out on top, there is a lot of merit to the suit.
gameryamen t1_j9p98es wrote
Here's the actual decision. It's very clear that the writing, composition, and compilation work that the artist did is considered creative work under copyright. The only parts that aren't copyrightable (according to this decision) are the generated images themselves. This seems like the most reasonable outcome. The comic has been granted copyright registration, the creator can market and sell it.
>For the reasons explained above, the Office concludes that the registration certificate for Zarya of the Dawn, number VAu001480196 was issued based on inaccurate and incomplete information. Had the Office known the information now provided by Ms. Kashtanova, it would have narrowed the claim to exclude material generated by artificial intelligence technology. In light of the new information, the Office will cancel the previous registration pursuant to 37 C.F.R, § 201.7(c)(4) and replace it with a new registration covering the original authorship that Ms. Kashtanova contributed to this work, namely, the “text” and the “selection, coordination, and arrangement of text created by the author and artwork generated by artificial intelligence.” Because these contributions predominantly contain textual material, they will be reregistered as an unpublished literary work. 19 The new registration will explicitly exclude “artwork generated by artificial intelligence.”
The decision goes pretty deep into whether prompts or subsequent editing are sufficient to qualify the images as creative, concluding that they aren't. This is the most questionable part to me, because they make the case that a person who commissions a design from a human artist isn't considered the author of that work, so commissioning a work from a machine shouldn't make you the author of the work.
That's a fair point, but when I commission a design from a human artist, one of the things I negotiate is rights and license ownership. An artist can agree to give me ownership of a design as part of our interaction. Midjourney's website states that, to the extent its up to them, they pass ownership rights of the images they generate to you.
At the end of the day, I don't personally need copyright protection over images I generate. I don't make enough to pay for registration. All I want is to be able to use them in my projects without the risk of being sued into oblivion. If the images are effectively public domain (which isn't explicitly determined in this decision), then we're all allowed to use them how we like, and that sounds like a great outcome to me.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9piugz wrote
>The decision goes pretty deep into whether prompts or subsequent editing are sufficient to qualify the images as creative, concluding that they aren't.
They decided that prompts are not sufficient, but subsequent editing can be. See page 9 of the document for an exemple of minor subsequent change not representing authoring work, and page 10 for this important paragraph :
>Based on Ms. Kashtanova’s description, the Office cannot determine what expression in the image was contributed through her use of Photoshop as opposed to generated by Midjourney.
She suggests that Photoshop was used to modify an intermediate image by Midjourney to “show[] aging of the face,” but it is unclear whether she manually edited the youthful face in a previous intermediate image, created a composite image using a previously generated image of an older woman, or did something else. To the extent that Ms. Kashtanova made substantive edits to an intermediate image generated by Midjourney, those edits could provide human authorship and would not be excluded from the new registration certificate.
So, USCO clearly states that substantive edits to an image generated by AI can create copyrightability.
throwaway-clonewars t1_j9t4uxr wrote
This is exactly how I think AI for art should be used: the person gets an image made, works as an editor to pick the best, then works as an artist to make a substantial number of edits to the piece so it's something new I'm the end.
The image would basically act as a starting point to jump from, like how concept art or "refined" thumbnails is used as the basis of things in all visual art forms. Or how people painting over old paintings works (my favorite was a person painting Smaug or some dragon setting fire to everything over a landscape piece of London)
Using images straight out the machine and attempting copyright- considering copyright is associated with making money- is where I disagree. In part from how it uses other artists work to make the image- it has to pull the visual styles from somewhere even if it's not copy pasting sections- as well as the fact that there's no human hand in its creation (prompts only count so far, because tons of people can use the same/similar prompt and end up with different finals)
(To me it's almost like pointing at something in nature and saying "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no one can have anything similar. I dont care if theres millions upon millions out there" when it's like a seashell or something pretty but dumb like that)
duboispourlhiver t1_j9t591j wrote
I agree with you on most points. I'd go further and say, from your last paragraph, that it seems weird to me to point at something one has produced himself and say "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no on can have anything similar". I'd abolish all copyright law, personally.
throwaway-clonewars t1_j9t6xwr wrote
I can understand it to a point, mainly as an artist and writer. Personally, I'd have no issue with people using my works as inspiration or creating fan works/parodies/satire associated with either or using similar to almost identical character/creatures etc in my original works. The issue comes up though is association. Theres things I don't want to have my work associated with (namely politics/current issues) so copyright would allow me to limit those who might use it in such associations (if they're being jerks on purpose about it, purposefully going against my wishes).
Same with how disney is super on target with their copyright because they don't want anything not "family friendly" associated with their brand while they retain control. They do take thing rather far though to the "no one can" side which I disagree with- especially when (as it's happened before) they essentially use smaller creators as product testers then hit with a copyright claim and turn around to sell near identical products they had removed.
As for specific copyright of an image/book, if I make it and am selling it myself, I'd definitely copyright it becuase (while not the intention when making it) its a way to support myself and future creations. As much and common as people say "it's for passion/fun you should do it for free/give it away for free" the time and supplies ain't that so it's gotta be funded somehow. In that instance I wouldn't be ok with someone taking it and sharing it where I haven't myself done so- be it for attention (karma farming and such, considering its rare for people to back track to the original creator from posts if theres credit given) or "easy money" such as uploading on Chinese sites and losting for cheap to send out as many as possible (as often happens with popular artworks).
If I'm not selling it, I do agree that a copyright doesn't really make sense and is over the top to do. (Unless of course there's a legitimate fear some else would file a false copyright license and try to outright steal legal rights from me/the original creator- seen some horror stories of people with horrible exes who try this with work they made while with them)
All that said, I majorly create for myself and share so I often am not putting myself in a position for need to copyright. (I do have works I'm doing specifically to sell so those would be a bit more "this is mine, you can have if you pay", but as of the current everything has been for passion and thus I'm on the "feel free to use" side.)
duboispourlhiver t1_j9tfsp3 wrote
Thank you for this long and interesting point of view.
I think that without copyright, creative work can still be a source of income thanks to work for hire and crowdfunding. I've aligned my actions with my anti copyright beliefs for years and am only getting money in the form of work for hire. I feel more relaxed this way. But other opinions and ways of life are completely ok.
Spire_Citron t1_j9qbbye wrote
I think the kind of rolls we're starting to get in things like Automatic1111 will change the question of whether editing the images is sufficient because at a certain point it goes far beyond simply commissioning a piece. You're manually changing the work in minute detail. There's also Controlnet now, which can take the pose from another image. If I use a photo I took for the pose in the image, what then? It gets complicated.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9sp05k wrote
It will clearly be copyrightable under the current doctrine
gay_manta_ray t1_j9qalj6 wrote
it's not a bad decision imo, but i suspect this will have to be revisited eventually. if they had decided that any work using ai generated content was not copyrightable, it would make any form of media using ai generated (like a game) unmarketable.
Lawjarp2 t1_j9py18b wrote
If it becomes very easy to do something all copyrights on it should stop. In a few years copyright itself will become meaningless.
ljohnblaze t1_j9r9txn wrote
Isn’t that where this is all ultimately headed? In its turn, Ai might flip all of these arcane institutions on their heads. If laws can’t keep up, they just might become obsolete to some extent as well. Buckle up.
flyblackbox t1_j9rn7k3 wrote
I think you would like this one: https://open.substack.com/pub/doxa/p/machine-learning-and-deflationary
Basically observes that all prices are headed towards zero.
turnip_burrito t1_j9s74oz wrote
There's a graph in there that observes basically only electronics are heading to zero.
All the other stuff is basically break even or going up in cost.
AKA the stuff we need in order to live as basic necessities outside of electronics is getting more expensive.
ljohnblaze t1_j9sqhcw wrote
Very interesting read, and agreed on all points. I wonder with the protected/subsidized roles and industries will give way, and what impacts solutions like UBI will play on society as a whole. Super exciting and scary - all of it. Thanks!
genericrich t1_j9on7fz wrote
Good. Copyright is for humans, not machines.
Will be interesting when big brands with rooms full of lawyers make their cases as to why they should be able to copyright AI-generated images. This isn't over by a long shot.
gantork t1_j9op8qh wrote
Nah it's pretty dumb. A human made the image, the AI was the tool. The idea, the concept and the intention come from the human, the AI doesn't do anything if it's not prompted, it has no will.
It's the same as a camara. The camera generates 100% of the image yet we recognize that it's the human intention that counts, so photos are granted copyright. Even if you take an accidental photo you will still get copyright for it, even tho you did literally nothing more than pressing a button by mistake. Not treating generative AI in the same way is a stupid double standard.
visarga t1_j9q9hb3 wrote
Stable Diffusion can be prompted by GPT's. Easily. In a forever loop.
genericrich t1_j9orl32 wrote
Photographs record reality we can perceive. AI art machines generate images that are derived based on their similarity to other image elements which match the prompts it is given.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate the patent office based its decision on creative intention instead of on derivation from other copyrighted images. For me, that's the crux of the issue. These machines are just taking your prompt tokens, and manipulating pixels until the generated image is as close as it can get based on what it has been trained on. Which are copyrighted images. So it is literally deriving a new image based on similarity to copyrighted images. Which is derivation, and derivative works are only allowed by copyright holders. (Under US copyright law)
visarga t1_j9q9q7o wrote
That is glossing over the fact that nobody can actually demonstrate which of the source images were responsible for this derivation. Will you choose, or shall we pick one or ten at random, or just the closest by similarity score? We have no way of assigning merit.
And I suspect you think everything in a copyrighted work is protected by copyright. But it's not true. Only expression is protected, not the ideas. You can borrow ideas if you don't copy the exact expression. AI only learned basic concepts, it builds new images from first principles. By learning only ideas and not exact expression they can have free hand.
If you want to be 100% sure, then it is possible to train an AI with variations of the original works generated by another AI - this way only the ideas are transmitted and the new model has never seen copyrighted works, so it can never replicate them even by mistake.
genericrich t1_j9qlhnd wrote
Ah, a way to skirt the law against using stolen images and abuse human copyright with impunity! And people wonder why artists are concerned with this glowing future you all are so eager for. Sounds positively utopian.
visarga t1_ja2zhbj wrote
But it is still preferable to train on synthetic images than on the original works, don't you agree?
When the artist refuses to allow their images be used for training AI models, or it is impossible to get permission for other reasons such as not knowing the correct contact information, if the AI uses variations it won't learn to imitate the originals closely. Variations should be OK because they have no copyright, as the courts decided. Seems like a better compromise than either indiscriminate training or making AI impossible to train.
randommultiplier t1_j9qcsqw wrote
>until the generated image is as close as it can get based on what it has been trained on
This isn't the case; if it was you wouldn't be able to create novel images by combining different ideas, but of course you can
genericrich t1_j9ql2vo wrote
But it is the case, because that is what it is doing.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9spbmy wrote
It would be more fair to say that AI generators have learned what an image that humans use is, and is now able to produce new images that humans would use, because it has understood the very very complex rules that distinguish an image humans use and random pixel noise.
gantork t1_j9oswqo wrote
I do agree that if they had focused on the copyrighted training data it would be more understandable. Even tho I personally think you should still get copyright, I do see how it's a tricky issue and why there's different opinions about it.
biogoly t1_j9qb355 wrote
So, if an AI generated work is transformative (significantly edited), then wouldn’t it be copyrightable? How would this be determined? If a work is 1% AI and 99% human created, obviously it should be copyrightable…but where would the arbitrary line be drawn? How would anyone but the creator know how much was transformed?Eventually the obvious defects in AI generated images will disappear.
timshel42 t1_j9ox4xe wrote
can you imagine if this wasnt the case? you'd have copyright trolls on crack, just pumping out as much generative content as possible and then hitting everyone they can with copyright violations.
PoliticallyCorrect- t1_j9pnv30 wrote
Using copyright claims written by chatgpt
TacomaKMart t1_j9q3i4j wrote
Shhhh they can hear you, don't give them ideas
SkySake t1_j9p0x0o wrote
but what if i take this picture and use photoshop to create something
FlowRiderBob t1_j9pxil4 wrote
Good question. If I go on the internet and find a copyrighted image and alter it to create a new image, under US law, that would still be copyright infringement.
But I would imagine that AI art will be treated more like public domain art. If I alter a public domain image I only own the copyright to the altered parts of the image. So I would imagine the same would go for AI art. Of course if you are the only person who ever saw the original AI art image then how does one know which is original and which is your own artistic addition?
There is still a lot of unsettled legal questions left to be answered.
randommultiplier t1_j9qd2er wrote
>Good question. If I go on the internet and find a copyrighted image and alter it to create a new image, under US law, that would still be copyright infringement.
It actually depends on the extent of the alteration and whether the result then falls into a protected class like parody
gay_manta_ray t1_j9qar3d wrote
judging by the decision, it would probably be copyrightable if you alter the image yourself afterwards.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9spj1i wrote
The decision is actually explicit about this. USCO says AI generated images are copyrightable if substantially modified.
21_MushroomCupcakes t1_j9okyoa wrote
Nice.
ziplock9000 t1_j9p7efh wrote
As an Indy game dev, if that's a price I pay for AI generated images to not be considered derived from earlier, human work and thus illegal to use. I'd be happy.
gay_manta_ray t1_j9qazxi wrote
in this case it looks like the images would not be covered under copyright, but the game itself still would be.
ziplock9000 t1_j9rbehd wrote
That would work for me.
ScaleLongjumping3606 t1_j9p9fhn wrote
The obvious implication here - if AI images can’t be copyrighted - is that those copyright holders now suing AI companies will lose their cases because AI images are not under copyright.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9pj162 wrote
If this stands in court (which I doubt) then public domain will be hugely extended.
medicalheads t1_j9pdbrn wrote
I applaud this rule.
TheRtHonLaqueesha t1_j9s69jm wrote
Common U.S. W!
AylaDoesntLikeYou t1_j9tewo7 wrote
In the near future (6 -12 months)
Ai art will be indistinguishable from human made art, in many cases it already is.
So you can create something with ai and just say it wasn't made with ai, who's gonna stop you? How can you prove someone really made something with ai?
You won't be able to, this decision is meaningless.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9tgc8p wrote
I agree and I've been trying to find counterarguments to this practical problem, but yet I have found none serious. If anything has any idea why this could be false, please discuss!
The best counterargument I have found so far is that there could be programs able to detect if an image is AI generated. I had studied this point some weeks ago and I don't think such programs will exist.
[deleted] t1_j9oj62b wrote
[removed]
TinyBurbz t1_j9pji07 wrote
Accelerationists btfo.
Kaje26 t1_j9q6gbz wrote
I mean… couldn’t the company that made the AI software copyright it?
FoveatedRendering t1_j9qkxfv wrote
The AI software companies waive copyright and say the image is the user's.
Mobile-Honeydew-3098 t1_j9u649n wrote
So current made I'm the motion of that piece of art you should be referring to and the value of that in a digital way if for an individual shod be found under the rules copy righted when moving give masiive room for explorations more so then not actually. Allot more
Mobile-Honeydew-3098 t1_j9u706w wrote
The copy right rights are of texts authors and of journeys the photos of digital pics are of the ai to decide and bring to life no holds in that anybody on a journey falls under inelecual property rights of in proving the property of individual interactions with ai
Mobile-Honeydew-3098 t1_j9u8fxw wrote
Not of the picture is moving in a unidentified crossing a recording would be the violation not the other wa y a copyd picture yes but not inaware lookalikes in the two that meet in a journey of written text and interactiveky creating there is no stronger copy right of intellectual wirhts Iwould you agree. That is base of creativity
rushmc1 t1_j9rjm5g wrote
Next up: Images using Photoshop. Then pencils.
duboispourlhiver t1_j9spllm wrote
Photography is an even closer parallel
qrayons t1_j9ouqi9 wrote
I feel like there's a fine line. In general, I recognize the creativity that goes not only into crafting the prompt, but also using artistic vision to adapt the prompt based on the outputs and select the best images. Not to mention the editing that can occur in the outputted images.
However, if there are absolutely zero restrictions on copyrighting AI generated art, then someone like Disney could write a program that generates millions of outputs of unique cartoon characters and they would all be copyrighted and then if someone recreated a similar character (by pure chance), that person would be violating Disney's copyright, and that doesn't feel right.