Raw LLM Responses

When a person gives an AI instruction as to what picture they want the AI to make, down to the details of the subject, type of shot, lighting, mood, etc, that's a human providing original intellectual conceptions. The court case under discussion involves a computer system which is designed to generate images autonomously, without human involvement. The ruling cites the example of a camera, which makes an image mechanically of what is before it, and argues that although a photo is generated mechanically, it is nevetheless copyrightable because it represents the original intellectual conceptions of the author. As long as a human is involved and has creative control over the output, a work is copyrightable. Edit: Downvoted for citing the District Court. That's wilfully ignorant.