[freejazz]

If you think that's what's really entailed in photography, you a) don't really seem to know anything about photography as a science, let alone an art, and b) should read US court cases on photography copyrights, which make all of these points against you. Happy to get you same case names if you are interested.

[1lint]

Yes I will take you up on the offer for these case names you mentioned. I think it will be interesting to read up on them, in light of the current copyright discussion around AI image generation, which I believe to be akin to photography due to the shared degree of reliance on a machine to generate images.

[freejazz]

Cameras don't "generate" an image, if they didn't they'd have the same copyrightability issue that AI generators have. You should read Mannion.

[1lint]

>> Cameras don't "generate" an image, if they didn't they'd have the same copyrightability issue that AI generators have

Please elaborate on your statement above. How would you characterize the method by which cameras produce images, and with respect to copyright law, how does this differentiate camera produced images from images produced by other machines?