The US Copyright Office has just partially confirmed the approach I have been defending for months: AI is only a tool, and just as a camera does not make the photographer, a prompt does not make the artist. What matters is the creative approach, the vision, the intention behind the use of the tool.

In its conclusion, the text is unequivocal: "Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements." This position partially makes prompt engineering obsolete and confirms what I wrote in "The Future of AI for Photographers": some images are only the product of prompts reflecting the personality of the machine, while others, the fruit of a more complex approach, truly bear the imprint of their creator.

An interesting aspect of the report is the idea that "the putative author must be able to constrain or channel the program's processing of the source material." These terms "constrain or channel" suggest that limiting, guiding or structuring the action of the algorithm by adding "human" references - such as a drawing or a photo - allows us to get closer to obtaining a form of copyright. This sentence validates the importance of using one's own archives and references as a basis for creation, an approach that I have long advocated and that I discussed in the post "The future of AI for photographers" of May 22, 2024.

However, the text does not yet seem to recognize writing based solely on AI, which raises questions for a new generation of artists developing a unique identity through the tool. It is on this issue that I am currently working with the philosopher Hubert Etienne, by developing a tool that reveals the creative singularity in the use of AI. Consider the analogy of a painter’s palette: just as each artist develops their “paste” through unique blends of colors, the AI ​​artist creates their signature through a specific combination of techniques and approaches that is impossible to reproduce. This “digital paste” deserves, in my opinion, to be recognized as an authentic creative expression.

This decision marks a decisive turning point for all artists who are developing a thoughtful practice of AI, using it not as a substitute but as an extension of their creativity. This report from the US Copyright Office will therefore probably be my bedside book for the coming months, deserving a thorough study to understand all its subtleties.

Artist :  ai.s.a.m (Sam Finn)