[crooked-v]

Of course, "proof of ownership" with generative art isn't, because pure generative art is ineligible for copyright protection (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...).

[monokai_nl]

You’re conflating AI art with algorithmic art. This is the reason why I wrote the article.

[t0bia_s]

You mean images? Art cannot by generated by definition.

[zamadatix]

This seems, either intentionally or unintentionally, an extremely narrow view of art.

E.g. are the artists who worked on Flow (2024) no longer artists because the resulting images are generated rather than drawn? Most people would disagree, and hold/put forth a very different definition as a result, given even they were already credited as the artists on the piece before I asked the question.

Even the arguments in the courts about AI, which is a very different kind of "generated" output, stuck to showing the outputs can't be copyrighted rather than trying to argue whether the outputs were still art as the problem.