[g-clef]

> the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain

That's close to what the Copyright office is laying out as their actual policy for AI-generated work: images or text created by AI prompting with no other human interaction are not eligible for copyright [1]. I like the Copyright office's approach, since it's pretty straightforward - did a human do this? If yes, can be copyrighted. If no, cannot. It follows clearly from the monkey selfie thing from a couple years ago, as well.

Unsurprisingly, though, some people have a problem with that idea. The Washington Post ran an op-ed that they put on the front page of the opinion section for a couple days claiming that this ruling was awful, and would destroy everything. [2] Personally, I'm taking the op-ed writer's opinion with a grain of salt, since he seems proud to have written a book praising NFTs, but that's just me.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/artificia...

[0dayz]

>"Hurts creators"

Edward Lee does such a cynical pearl clutch, artists does creative work, if ai replaces 90% of that, there's no "creative work" left, then it's like a record label labeling itself as a culture creator despite only maybe doing 10% of creative work.

And as you point out, it's not as if you can't copyright individual pieces and plan out the parts you are willing to make non-copyrightable (such as backgrounds).