AI Art Copyright: Why AI-Generated Images Belong to No One

The Court Confirmed What We All Knew: AI Art Belongs to No One.

Another day, another ruling.
This time, a U.S. appeals court calmly reminded everyone that purely AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted.

No drama.
No outrage.

Just a formal confirmation that when a machine produces an image without human authorship, there’s no author behind it.

No artist. No ownership. Just output.

Some people are celebrating the decision.
Others are furious.

Both sides are missing the point. The real story here isn’t about legal rights.

It’s about the fact that we’ve built systems to imitate creativity so well that we forgot why we needed authorship in the first place.

The question isn’t:
“Who owns this image?”
The question is:
“Does it even matter when no one actually made it?”

We’ve automated the act of creating and, in the process, stripped it of meaning, risk and responsibility.

What’s left is noise.
Endless, ownerless noise.
And now it’s official.

The real tragedy is that so much of what’s flooding the internet right now is this ownerless, soulless, recycled visual junk — and everyone is still busy calling it “the future of creativity.”

You wanted the death of authorship?
Here it is.
Served cold.

Now anyone can take your “original” AI-generated masterpiece and slap it on a mug, a T-shirt or whatever comes next — and if the image has no copyright protection, stopping them becomes much harder.

The machine doesn’t care.
The court doesn’t care.

And frankly,
neither should we.

...your worst artist and best friend,

hEhe and my contemporary art criticism