[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

I don't think Fontana's reasoning holds up.

I think it is more like photography.

The case law is that a camera can't own a copyright, but a human can, even though all the pixels were produced by the camera with very little involvement at the pixel level by the human.

[waterTanuki]

A camera doesn't use unlicensed IP from other sources to produce an image. The makers of the camera explicitly gave you a right to own the photograph taken with the parts used to assemble the camera.

[ryukoposting]

Actually yes, Fontana's reasoning does hold up, and the USSC seems to agree:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...

Prompting generally does not constitute authorship under US law.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

That was not what the USSC case was about. It was about assigning copyright to an AI instead of a human.