Raw LLM Responses

I'm with you on the topic of that AI art can be easy and simple to make and just misleading - but also (and I am by no means an expert on US copyright law, not from the US. But I'm an artist and I encounter many misconceptions about art on a regular basis): the question of copyrighting is not a question of talent. Using a brush or a camera in itself also is not a question of talent. A one year old can use a brush. A photograph doesn't need to be "good" by any means in order to qualify for copyright protection. I would even argue, that - just generally speaking - pointing a digital camera at any object and taking a picture (which pretty much will be copyright protected in almost any cases) is at least as easy as generating a prompt, if not easier (you don't need to be able to put something into intelligible words even). Basically in the US - as far as I know - the two requirements for copyright protection are originality - taken from the page of the copyright alliance: "To be original, a work of authorship must merely be independently created. In other words, it cannot be copied from another. There is no requirement that the work be novel (as in patent law), unique, imaginative or inventive. A work need only demonstrate a very small amount of creativity in order to meet the originality requirement. Very few creations fail to satisfy the minimum creativity requirement." and fixation. That's it. So maybe instead of asking, if prompting a generative AI should have the same status as a Rembrandt or Richter, we should first look at the bottom end of effort and what's the minimum criteria needed to regard an artwork as protection worthy and if pointing a camera in any direction and pushing a button generally satisfies that criteria, is it possible that there exist some AI artworks that have way more effort and artistic vision put into them than that - As a base line I think it's a good thing to have that discussion about what makes and what constitutes art, maybe even "good art". But every new medium always had the very same discussions of "is this real art" - it was the same thing when photography started, film, audio recordings etc. And over time those art forms became more sophisticated and developed their scope, depth of expression and their own language and skill sets further and further. And it's probably also a fact, that there is a great variety in the quality of available AI artworks and therefor also experience/skill in the creation of those. I do not promote one perspective over the other, but I find it necessary to also frame such claims within a broader perspective. Other than that: keep the discussion going! :)