That brings the question: in order for a work to be copyrighted, does a human need to put "some" effort into generating that work (prompt engineering, tweaking knobs, etc.) or does it suffice to click a "generate" button?
"Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who 'shoots' or 'takes' the photo."
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/
Let's say a photographer sets up his camera, aims it, composes it, focuses it, etc. But he decides the light isn't quite right yet, so he goes for lunch. While he is away, his assistant clicks the shutter on a whim, capturing more or less the exact image what the photographer intended to capture. The resulting photograph's copyright belongs to the assistant, not the photographer.
This is in theory, of course. In practice, this would be difficult to prove, since the picture is likely to be on a roll of many other pictures for which the photographer does own the copyright. The assistant would need some definitive evidence that they clicked the shutter on that exact frame if they wanted credit for their work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
And that might lead to an argument that if the human doesn't hold the copyright the AI does, but then you are back to square one because you need to be a legal entity to hold copyright.
You are using the power of the state to restrict my freedoms.
Copyright is slightly different, but still
I mean, if you have to point the camera, and set the fstop or set photo vs pano, or even just set the flash or what have you, aren't you kind of key to generating that image? (Even though you generated it with the press of the button.) I mean, if the human didn't point the camera and set the settings, it would be a different picture even if someone did push the button on a camera that was just sitting on a table say.