The whole situation is confusing enough without this trash making things worse.
> with the Creativity Machine identified as the author and himself as the “work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”
How on earth is a machine going to get copyright priveleges? Is a machine going to sue if the copyright is infringed? Complete and utter nonsense.
The much more serious discussion is about if someone can just type a prompt and then have the copyright to what the ai outputs. That's the main question. Instead, this case keeps getting brought up and lets people mistakenly claim that 'ai art can't be copyrighted' as if it's a settled issue altogether.
