Raw LLM Responses

There’s a significant loophole here, as some visual pieces and symbols derive their value not from what they initially were, but from the impact they gain through events surrounding them. Certain visuals become focal points for events, controversies, or even revolutions, which add layers of meaning to them. This applies to this piece as well. It became the center of a scandal and controversy after winning an art competition and going viral. Now, millions recognize it, some seeing it as a sign of positive change and technological progress, while others view it more critically. Consider this: imagine someone uses a computer to randomly generate a few shapes in random colors, without any AI—just a basic randomization algorithm. No miningfull, no artistic input at all. At first, the resulting image has no value; it’s just a random but distinctive pattern. Then, the initatior of the creation process prints this design on a t-shirt, wears it going out and then acidentally he gets mixed into some important events, and the pattern, initially meaningless, gains recognition and significance due to its association with something controversial or important. Suddenly, people want that design on their mugs, clothes, and walls because of the new value it holds. In this scenario, the creator retains full copyright and can benefit from it. However, the creator of this AI-generated piece is denied those same rights. The question is: why should AI-generated art be the only form of creation that strips the initiator of the creation proces, of his copyright ownership?