This argument falls apart when you consider digital photographers. They didn’t create the image - a machine and software did. Would you make the same argument that a photographer’s only copyright is the input to the camera settings and the color-grading software?
Proof of process is totally reasonable, since all art should have a clear provenance, and I’m sure the original prompt & seed could prove his ownership.
This goes beyond your point, but the argument that AI Art can’t be copyrighted because it was trained on copyrighted works is a little hackneyed. Every human artist is trained on copyrighted works, reproduces that art during school, and often incorporates referential elements into their own art.
Proof of process is totally reasonable, since all art should have a clear provenance, and I’m sure the original prompt & seed could prove his ownership.
This goes beyond your point, but the argument that AI Art can’t be copyrighted because it was trained on copyrighted works is a little hackneyed. Every human artist is trained on copyrighted works, reproduces that art during school, and often incorporates referential elements into their own art.