Wouldn't someone have that issue with a regular logo as well? Wouldn't the same recourse be followed?

Is not the selection and omission of poorly generated images the "human authorship" [1] necessary to qualify? Or can OP modify AI generated art meaningfully to qualify for copyright?

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...

It reminds me of 3D art where there is a lot of up front work in making models, textures, armatures, and shaders. You send a ton of data to the GPU and it spits out a rendered image or more likely a tile of one.

Isn't the usual workflow "pay me and I'll make a logo for you", not "here's a bunch of premade logos for sale"?

This is a cool project on technical merits but by commercializing it, you're begging for a lawsuit. I nearly-recognize a couple of your logos, which could be a problem for you. As you've almost certainly used non-free sources in your training set, you'll be defenseless if somebody comes after you for trademark infringement.

And, as somebody who has made logos in the past? I'd feel pretty secure in the knowledge that your "AI-generated" works are not protected, and dissatisfied with rasterized versions with all their weird artifacts. It would take very little time for me to make a vectorized version of one of your logos that would look way better and you would have no legal recourse. My only real fear would be that I'd be ripping off somebody else's logo.