That specifically states “works created solely by machines” so probably doesn't cover AI-aided work? Though where you draw the line there is likely to be something that'll tax legal budgets for years to come…
> The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.
Meanwhile all the actual programmers demand that you spend effort constantly reviewing and iterating on the AI's work so the project doesn't turn into slop.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Maybe the best course of action is to opt out. Copyright is irrelevant if the software isn't published. So much for our precious commons.
Editors do not have any IPRs over the resulting literary work.
Following that simile, the AI is the "author" and the developer is the "editor".
Given that an AI cannot be an "author" under copyright law, there is no copyright in the final product.