I find it astonishing that people continue to make this argument. A machine is owned by someone, a human is not. Why should the law treat machines the same way as a human? Sounds like some corporate flim-flam to me.
>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The purpose of copyright is not to protect the authors, it is to promote the progress of science and art.
The current situation for AI image generation is pretty much the only way these technologies will be available to everyone. Most other paths will simply lead to billion dollar corporations acting as gatekeepers to this technology. Megacorps can afford to hire artists to generate specific art for their AI models, everyone else cannot.
You end up with billion dollar corporations gatekeeping this technology either way (who else has the capital to best train the models?). This isn’t about the little guy.
It shouldn't, that's why arguments that the algorithm is learning, so it's doing the same thing that is legal for humans to do is completely fallacious, on top of it just being anthropomorphism.