And that's before we start talking about finetuned models, model merging, LoRA and so on.
It's too early to say where we will end up with AI generated works. In the search for control over output, there's a lot more creative human input needed today. This is in part down to limitations in the integration of current AI, and a dialog with a chat bot, or even a voice conversation combined with a pointer may be enough to convey intent in the future. We just don't know yet.
I also wonder if there's a parallel with the relationship between modern artists and artisans. For example, many marble sculptures by modern artists are actually carved by artisans in Italy, following directions from the artist. I expect that the artisans are doing work for hire and the copyright is retained by the artist with the idea.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/damien-hirsts-army-of-geppetto...
> “More conceptual artists have no work space at all, simply imagining ideas for a work, which they communicate with words.”
Sounds like a prompt?
Very interesting too, since a lot of modern artist work like a small company, where they have employees that execute on the artist's vision. The copyright still belongs to the artist, though, because of the employment contract.
I don't think this is a showstopper in terms of copyright registration of A.I. works, but rather a first step in a back-and-forth process of figuring out the legal structure of how to makes rules and enforcement work.
I imagine many people have a workflow where they generate images with Stable Diffusion and retouch in a painting app, do some inpainting and retouch.
It seems all of those should be covered by copyright (nothing above makes me think they won't, at least).