> Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright?

I feel like you’re making the same argument as me, with the same rhetoric, but a different example. No, I do not think the printing press, paint, or generative tools are bannable by copyright. I do think all 3 could be used to produce a work that is in violation of copyright. And no, I don’t think a novel work produced by any of them are in violation of copyright.

I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by paint with the works produced by AI? Are you saying that if I throw a can of white paint against a Jackson Pollock painting, the paint itself is producing a novel work?

My point is that copyright does not care about the means by which a work is generated. It is merely whether the output is substantially similar.

If a printing press randomly produces Hamlet, you cannot sell it. That does not mean you cannot generate something that is sellable without violating copyright by printing random words.

There is a small amount of attention paid to whether an artist knew of a work that someone claims was copied. Especially in the literary world with hacks who try to steal from successful authors with pathetic claims.

But they tend not to hold a lot of weight. It just makes it easier to dismiss trolls.

AI is a tool. It is not sentient. It is paint.