> The Office misapplied the 'human authorship' requirement and ignored the fundamental principle that copyright is meant to be granted to expressions of ideas originating from a human mind
Art created by AI is an interesting question on copyright and begs the question how many and/or what tools are used to create the piece.
AI in the end is just an algorithm that creates output based off of input, just like any effect or filter. The only difference is that it currently is not obvious how the filter is happening. It could be farfetched to say that the average artist doesn't understand how the technology they are using creates an output. Though after many trial and error attempts they were able to create the intended piece.
Thus if one has go through the same process with an AI engine (a tool), why should it not be copyrightable?
Another aspect to consider is the uniqueness factor. When applying a non-AI filter onto the same initial condition one will get almost the same output to a degree of noise. If the opinionated factor is how big this degree is permitted, then there will always be a bias.
If one could prove that the prompt given to the AI filter stays in the range of permitted noise, then copyright should be given.
