AI-assisted art – A mixed decision from the copyright office
<p><pre><code>  &gt; First, that&#x27;s not the right legal standard. The standard is whether there is a &quot;modicum of creativity,&quot; not whether Kris could &quot;predict what Midjourney [would] create ahead of time.&quot; In other words, the Office incorrectly focused on the output of the tool rather than the input from the human.
</code></pre>
if the input is a prompt that anyone can write.... for example if i wrote &quot;elephant with blue skin&quot; into midjourney and someone else also did, and we get exactly the same image or a totally different image, it doesnt matter does it?<p>how does &quot;elephant with blue skin&quot; or any other prompt meet the criteria of &#x27;modicum of creativity&#x27;?<p>in the end, its the tool that is doing the heavy lifting and being able to copyright its output sounds against the spirit of copyright (allow a human to get proper compensation for their creative work and incentivize creativity) imo.<p>is there something obvious i am missing?