This [1] is, to my knowledge, the latest word on who'd own the copyright. And the answer is most likely the author, with the second most likely candidate being nobody. In a nutshell, "AI" generated content itself cannot be copyrighted since the process is carried out by software instead of a human, and software cannot be assigned ownership of copyright. However, material that is sufficiently recombined in a 'creative way' can be copyrighted.
The case/example mentioned is that a single image from image generation software cannot be copyrighted, but a series of related images being used to tell a story can be copyrighted, because it's a human carrying out the creative task.
The case/example mentioned is that a single image from image generation software cannot be copyrighted, but a series of related images being used to tell a story can be copyrighted, because it's a human carrying out the creative task.
[1] - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/us-issues-guidan...