From that ruling to this case it extends that the local or tourist who took the photo would be the copyright holder which makes little sense.
(No)
He's going to make some decisions about the framing etc, as one of the best photographers of all time.
Am I understanding you correctly?
You can prompt whatever you want but won’t own the copyright. Photographer will choose himself if he follow or not your "prompt", what side and angle he tilt, the zoom, when to press the shutter…
All this is pretty much grey area anyways. Both sides have merit.
But it would be difficult to adjust that without making the rules even messier.
> but if they do so without me "prompting" them, then I no longer am?
We prompt the AI. I do not see how AI generated art cannot be copyrighted, TBH, but I am against copyright in general (or the way it is done abroad).
Must read:
https://mises.org/mises-daily/patents-and-copyrights-should-...
https://fee.org/articles/mises-on-copyrights/
TL;DR, FWIW:
Mises supported intellectual property rights, including copyright, as a necessary legal tool in a free-market economy to incentivize creativity and innovation. He viewed intellectual property as a socially constructed right to protect creators' labor but cautioned against excessive or monopolistic extensions that could harm competition and economic efficiency.
Rothbard opposed intellectual property rights, including copyright, as state-enforced monopolies that interfere with the free market. He argued that ideas, being non-rivalrous, cannot be owned like private property. Rothbard believed intellectual property could be protected through voluntary contracts, without state involvement, in a truly free market.
To say on topic:
Mises: Likely supports copyright for AI-generated art if the human user contributes creatively (prompt, modifications).
Rothbard: Opposes copyright for AI-generated art, as he believes intellectual property should be based on human labor and not state-enforced monopolies.
I wonder about something like this[0]. So much awesome engineering went into it. And the guy is clearly an artist and considers himself an artist[1]. As it is his own tool, are the random splatters it generates not copyrightable?
Depending on if the prompt met other guidelines for copyright, it would be pretty uncontroversial to say you own the copyright on the prompt.
Copyright on the picture, is about as assignable as if you invited ten painters over to your house and read the prompt as spoken word poetry, then received one painting at random. The fact that your prompt won't reliably produce the same picture suggests that you are not in control of the artistic choices made, and therefore have no claim to the copyright.
Then it's the prompt that is copyrighted, not the end result.
US copyright law specifically states that only works fixed into existence by a human author can be copyrighted, and specifically excludes processes or procedures by which a work might ultimately come to be fixed.