I agree. I wonder: have the / will the courts agree(d)?

I’ll grant you that AI isn’t actually intelligent, but I’ve seen many images and video that exhibited a good bit of originality, and were at a minimum a derived work…

US Laws about photography in public places is much different than other countries where you have to get permission from people being photographed.

Creatives have used this to create their own art, based on the non-consensual photos of others.

A particularly egregious example is Arne Svenson, who used telephoto lenses to shoot into apartments and exhibited photos of children for his art

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/art...

And creatives were fine with that. They defended it as transformative, as a sacrifice we make for the betterment of society.

So pardon me, if I don't feel all that bad for creatives when the shoe is on the other foot.

AI is transformative, and brings creative capabilities to far more people.

Perhaps its their turn to sacrifice for the greater good of society.