@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey Creation isn’t limited to physical execution. Without the commissioner’s input, the final work wouldn’t exist in its intended form. Directing composition, lighting, and form is a creative act—just as a film director doesn’t hold the camera, yet still creates the film.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey I haven’t moved the goalposts at all. The cited work was created using Invoke, an AI art tool. The 'collage' you mention refers to in-painting, a feature that allows precise control over composition while still utilizing generative AI tools.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey If a commissioner makes significant decisions about composition, lighting, and form, they are not merely making a request but actively collaborating in the creative process. Their direction shapes the final work, making them a co-creator rather than just a client.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey Obviously. Works created solely by a machine aren't eligible for copyright. However, the final artwork wasn't solely created by a machine. The USCO acknowledged the human contributions and granted copyright over the resulting work as a whole.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey The difference is control. A commissioned artist interprets and executes the work using their own creativity. With AI, the user refines and directs the output through iterative prompting and tools—like in-painting—making it a hands-on process, not just a request.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey Except, they did. The USCO has allowed the registration of AI-assisted works based on the human contributions made during the artist's operation of the software. I literally provided a link to an article discussing this in the quoted post.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey The idea that an AI artist is merely making a request, like commissioning art, is flawed. AI software isn’t an independent entity—it’s a tool. The individual operating it determines the outcome, just as a painter does with a brush or a photographer does with a camera.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey This is simply incorrect. As I’ve already pointed out, the US Copyright Office has acknowledged human authorship in AI-assisted works. If even the USCO recognizes the human contribution in AI art, your argument that it lacks authorship falls apart.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey Yes, my point is that they are similar in artistic intent, but also that both involve creative decision-making through a machine-assisted process. The method of production differs, but that doesn’t change the fact that both require artistic skill and creativity.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey Analogies don’t require a 1:1 match, only a meaningful similarity—which I’ve explained clearly. Photography and AI art both require creative input to shape the final work. You haven’t debunked that, nor have I changed my point in any way.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey I was specifically comparing photography and AI art in terms of artistic intent, not claiming the two crafts are identical. My point has always been that AI art is an artistic craft, just like any other medium that requires creative decision-making.

@LodeGhost @you_gotta_ @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner Did you read my second reply? Here it is...

@LodeGhost @you_gotta_ @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner And if that wasn’t their point, then their argument is moot. I never claimed the methods of production were identical—different forms of art naturally have different processes. What matters is that they all involve creative intent and expression.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner Creative expression is about making one's thoughts, feelings, or imagination known to others—it isn’t limited to physically altering the world. Art is defined by intent and vision, not just by the medium used to create it. You’ve fundamentally misunderstood my point.

@LodeGhost @you_gotta_ @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner If it weren’t for the creative decisions made in how to capture and present the scene, it wouldn’t be considered art. Simply capturing reality isn’t what makes photography artistic—it’s the expression behind the choices, like framing, lighting, and composition, that makes it art.

@LodeGhost @you_gotta_ @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner They implied that the artistic value of photography is solely in preserving a moment, which is fundamentally incorrect. The art of photography lies in creative expression—framing, lighting, and composition—not just in capturing reality.

@shadmbrooks There is a certain sense of vindication with this decision.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner This is fundamentally incorrect. Photography captures reality, but it’s the creative expression behind framing, lighting, and composition that makes it art. The method of production doesn’t negate artistic intent.

@you_gotta_ @LodeGhost @handheldfe39524 @4everwalkalone @MillieCheesey @WilliamShatner I'll add that the USCO has officially registered the copyright of AI-assisted art. Even our legal system now recognizes authorship in AI art.