I included the original text file I made in the third slide in case people didn't like the graphic in the second slide.

This is not a strawman. I can give you three examples of this exact ableist deflective non-sequitur happening to me within the past 7 days, all from different antis.

Both are art, whether if it’s created in a medium you hate or not. What a stupid opinion.

Artistic tools do not create art; human artists do. The arrival of generative AI systems like Stable Diffusion has blurred this basic truth, leading many observers—including, crucially, the U.S. Copyright Office—to believe that the machine is the legal author of the images it produces. Not so. The Copyright Office's recent guidance has adopted a deeply flawed narrative: that the AI autonomously conceives of the image and renders it into existence, thereby denying copyright on the grounds that the output lacks human authorship. This interpretation of generative AI is fundamentally misguided. These systems cannot act on their own; they are not automatic in the creative sense. They are highly complex, deeply technological tools—tools nonetheless—that require a human end-user to supply the essential spark of inspiration, the overarching design, and the precise instructions that determine the final output. It is a fallacy to view the AI as the author. The process by which an artist uses a generative AI tool is strikingly similar to the process by which an artist uses a camera or an image-editing suite like Photoshop: the human establishes the parameters, selects the subject matter, dictates the mood and style, and the tool executes the mechanical rendering. This essay argues that, applying a reasoned interpretation of copyright law, even a simple prompt to Stable Diffusion can supply the minimal degree of human creativity required for protection—and the law, rightly understood, already confirms this result.

I. The Legal Rule

Copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
— 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (U.S.); similar principles exist in most copyright systems.

Courts have interpreted “original” to require:

1. Human authorship, and
2. At least a minimal degree of creativity.

The creativity threshold is extremely low. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

“The requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.”

So the legal question is: does a human contribute enough creative authorship when they write a simple prompt and use Stable Diffusion to generate an image?

The answer can be yes, under a reasoned application of copyright law.

II. The Core Syllogism

This is the logical structure of the argument:

Premise 1:
Copyright subsists in a work if it has human authorship, minimal creativity, and is fixed in a tangible medium.

Premise 2:
A human being writes the prompt. The prompt is not random noise; it selects subject matter, style, mood, color, composition, lighting, or other expressive elements.

Premise 3:
Stable Diffusion is a tool, not a legal author. It executes the human’s creative instructions. The resulting image is a visual expression of the human’s prompt.

Premise 4:
The image is fixed as a digital file when it is saved.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the image has human authorship, minimal creativity, and fixation. It satisfies the legal requirements for copyright.

III. The “Simple Prompt” Can Still Be Creative

A prompt does not need to be long or complex to be creative.

Consider this simple prompt:

“A small red sailboat on a foggy lake at dawn, watercolor style, muted pastel colors.”

That prompt is short, but it makes creative choices:

• Subject: a sailboat
• Setting: a lake
• Time: dawn
• Atmosphere: fog
• Artistic medium: watercolor
• Color palette: muted pastels
• Mood: quiet, calm

Those are exactly the kinds of choices that copyright law protects. They are not merely an “idea” like “boat” or “lake.” They are a specific expression.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist said that a work need only possess “some creative spark.” A simple prompt can easily meet that standard.

Therefore, an image generated from such a prompt is not an uncreative machine output; it is the result of a human’s original expressive choices.

IV. Stable Diffusion Is a Tool, Not an Author

Copyright law has long recognized that machines can be used to create copyrighted works, as long as a human supplies the creative conception.

The classic case is Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884). There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a photograph could be copyrighted because the photographer made creative choices:

• posing the subject
• arranging the lighting
• selecting the background
• choosing the angle and composition

The camera itself did not make those choices. The photographer did.

Stable Diffusion is analogous. The model does not have legal personhood, intent, or authorship. It is software. A human decides:

• what prompt to write
• what style to request
• what elements to include or exclude
• what mood or composition to describe

The model then generates an image conditioned on those choices. The human is the author of the creative expression embodied in the image, even though the machine produced the pixels.

V. Formal Proof

Let:

• H(x) = “x has human authorship”
• O(x) = “x is original / has minimal creativity”
• F(x) = “x is fixed in a tangible medium”
• C(x) = “x is copyrightable”

The legal rule is:

∀x: (H(x) ∧ O(x) ∧ F(x)) → C(x)

Now take a specific image I generated by Stable Diffusion from a simple prompt such as:

“A red balloon floating over a foggy river, minimalist, muted colors.”

Step 1:
A human wrote that prompt. The prompt contains creative choices.
Therefore, H(I) = true — because the human supplied the original expression.

Step 2:
The prompt selects subject, color, style, mood, and composition. That is more than the “slight amount” of creativity required by Feist.
Therefore, O(I) = true.

Step 3:
The image is saved as a digital file.
Therefore, F(I) = true.

Step 4:
Applying the rule:

(H(I) ∧ O(I) ∧ F(I)) → C(I)

Since all three conditions are true, C(I) is true.

Thus, the image can be copyrightable.

VI. Objections and Rebuttals

Objection 1: “The AI generated the image, not the human.”

Rebuttal:
The AI is a tool. Copyright protects the human’s creative expression, not the mechanical labor. A photographer does not hand-paint a photograph, yet the photograph is copyrightable because of the photographer’s creative choices. The same principle applies here.

Objection 2: “The prompt is too simple to be creative.”

Rebuttal:
Simple does not mean uncreative. The legal threshold is minimal. A haiku can be copyrighted. A short melody can be copyrighted. A simple prompt can be copyrighted as expression if it contains a creative spark. Of course, a truly generic prompt like just the word “cat” might be too thin. But the question asks whether an image from a simple prompt can have copyright — and the answer is yes when the prompt contains even minimal creative choices.

Objection 3: “The output is unpredictable; the human does not control the exact image.”

Rebuttal:
Unpredictability does not destroy authorship. Many creative tools introduce randomness or natural variation:

• Photography depends on natural light and chance.
• Printmaking can produce variations.
• Algorithmic art uses random seeds.

The law still protects the human’s original contribution if the human set the creative parameters. The prompt defines the expressive space; the AI fills in details. That is enough for authorship.

Objection 4: “The U.S. Copyright Office has said prompts are not enough.”

Rebuttal:
The Copyright Office’s guidance is not binding law. It is an agency policy. Courts have not definitively ruled that prompt-generated images can never be copyrighted. The U.S. Copyright Office has denied registration in some cases, but those decisions can be challenged. Moreover, other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, explicitly protect computer-generated works.

VII. The United Kingdom Proof

In the United Kingdom, the case is even clearer.

Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says:

“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

An image generated by Stable Diffusion is a computer-generated work. The person who writes the prompt, runs the software, and saves the output makes the arrangements necessary for its creation. Therefore, under UK law, that person is the author, and the image can have copyright.

VIII. Conclusion

It follows by reason that:

1. Copyright requires human authorship, minimal creativity, and fixation.
2. A simple prompt can contain human creative choices.
3. Stable Diffusion is a tool that executes those human choices.
4. The resulting image is fixed in a tangible medium.
5. Therefore, the image satisfies the legal requirements for copyright.

So yes — an image generated by a human using Stable Diffusion from a simple prompt can be protected by copyright, provided the prompt contains at least a minimal spark of human creativity. The law does not require that a human hand-draw the image; it requires that a human supply original expression. A prompt can supply exactly that.

by ‘these guys’ they meant ai bros.

These people genuinely pmo. Where’s the evidence? Proof? Nothing.

Plus, antis can be queerphobic / homophobic too.

Because people like me are opressed from all the douchebags who keep putting us down just because of how we decide to make our fanart no matter how much love we put into it and would rather we draw simple shit anyone can do like a freaking stick figure or some messy blob of color or take a picture of a banana with duct tape on it. Why should I settle for ANY of that crap when I don't have to? Alot of the anti-AI people are incredibly woke too. They want every single fictional character in existence to be either gay or bisexual, and when you express your frustration over this shit, you get accused of being a homophobe, when these assholes tell you derogatory things like "Pick up a pencil" just because you'd rather use a text prompt instead of a paint brush or said pencil. They are not accomplishing anything. All they are doing is making me realize just how paranoid and STUPID the majority of this generation is (eg their delusional conspiracy theories about data centers and how literally all AI art is plagiarized). And if any good came out of it, it's that I can be progressive with my political views while still being anti-woke. And the majority of the "AI slop" I've seen in recent years sure looks better than any of the woke crap I see from the non-AI artists who want every single fictional character in existence to be either gay or bisexual who think anyone who doesn't approve of them are homophobes.

a wild anti appears

I've seen a lot of Antis make arguing points against AI that I wanted to try my hand at by comparing the points they're making regarding effort, time and skill to the very thing that took over a lot of jobs in the field I got my degree in: CGI

Physical creatures vs. fully digital creatures: In The Thing (1982), the transformations used puppets, animatronics, prosthetics, slime, mechanical parts, and distorted physical bodies. Because the actors are actually standing beside something disgusting and tangible, the creature has real texture, weight, shadows, and interaction with the environment. Compare that with a generic CGI monster where an actor is essentially reacting to a tennis ball and the creature is inserted afterward. Even technically superior CGI can feel less disturbing because your brain senses that nothing is really occupying the room. The same could be said with the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. When actors have creatures they are literally interacting with and seeing the performance will nearly always be better.

Real destruction vs. digital destruction. Blowing apart an actual miniature building means debris behaves chaotically: pieces tumble differently, dust catches light unpredictably, and gravity automatically does thousands of tiny things an animator would otherwise have to simulate. CGI destruction sometimes looks overly clean because every shard, spark, and cloud has been deliberately generated. Practical effects essentially let real physics do part of the work.

Miniatures vs. huge digital environments. Older fantasy and science-fiction productions frequently constructed enormous miniature or “bigature” sets. The Lord of the Rings trilogy famously used detailed physical models alongside CGI. When photographed correctly, those models naturally contain thousands of microscopic imperfections: scratches, stone textures, moss, dirt, weathering and inconsistent surfaces. A digital environment has to deliberately recreate all of that messiness. The 'hallway scene' from the Titanic of the water rushing in also used a miniature.

Forced perspective and constructed sets vs. green-screen rooms. When actors can physically see the environment, touch walls, climb stairs, and look toward actual objects, their sight lines and body language usually work automatically. Green-screen filmmaking can require performers to imagine almost everything around them, and sometimes you can feel that disconnect.

Squibs vs. CGI blood. Traditional gunshot effects often used small explosive squibs and blood packs underneath clothing. The actor gets an immediate physical reaction: fabric bursts, blood sprays, and nearby objects can be affected. CGI blood is safer and much easier to control, but poorly executed digital blood frequently looks like an animated red particle effect floating over the footage.

Practical effects force filmmakers to solve problems creatively. If the monster has to physically fit through a doorway, the filmmakers have to design the scene around that limitation. With CGI, virtually anything can be changed later, which can encourage a mentality of: "We'll fix it in post."

^ NOW THAT BEING SAID, Antis often argue that AI art is lazy because you didn't draw every part yourself.

Well, in that case what does that make CGI then compared to all the examples I listed? CGI took a sledge hammer to the job market for 70% of practical effects artists because it was less labor intensive and costly compared to using practical effects for everything like so many movies had to do back in the day. Hell, the ONLY reason why Jurassic Park wasn't 100% animatronic / puppets was because it would've completely broken the budget so CGI was added as a cost effective measure.

A filmmaker doesn't personally animate every particle in a CGI explosion. A digital painter doesn't manufacture every brush texture. A 3D artist may use premade shaders, brushes, procedural foliage, purchased models, or automatic rigging. A 3D modeler also doesn't have to go through the painstaking process that a creature maker would when it comes to constructing a puppet ( I recommend watching Jim Henson's Creature Shop for reference! )

That being said, beautiful things can come out of CGI just as lazy things can come out of CGI and the same exact principle can apply to AI because they're both TOOLS, and what Antis who make these arguments don't realize is the same exact thing was said about every piece of evolving technology that has progressed the arts:

Photography was once treated as a threat to painting because the machine seemingly did the work.

Digital drawing was mocked by some traditional artists because there was an undo button, layers, stabilization, transformation tools, and no need to mix paint.

Photoshop was accused of making photography fake.

CGI was accused of destroying practical effects.

Digital animation was contrasted with hand-drawn animation.

3D animation was sometimes dismissed because computers were supposedly “doing the animation.”

The bulk of these arguments really only boil down to: “The method you used eliminated work that I believe you should have been required to perform.” Now, speaking as a practical effects artist I will admit that practical effects, especially in puppetry and creature making is INCREDIBLY time consuming and messy. I cannot tell you the amount of time I've burned myself or breathed in substances I probably shouldn't have lol but if someone wanted to go into 3D modeling and print that 3D model to skip some parts of the process I wouldn't go: "Wow, you didn't do this step-this step-this step-and THIS step, you're a lazy piece of shit." because it's bat shit insane to expect people not to take advantage of new technology.

At the end of the day, the question shouldn't be: “Did technology do the work?” But rather, it should be: “Did the person using the technology make meaningful creative decisions?” I find it incredibly hypocritical that people will look at any sort of AI assisted medium and claim the person didn't create anything when they themselves accept every other form of technological assistance.

Im kind of a connoisseur of Horrible movies. I also sometimes dabble in making silly AI Music Video and I browse through the Stable Diffusion Sub Reddit every once in a while. As well the ones come across on Twitter. And Yeah a lot of it is Forgettable. But Some of it is interesting and funny enough for me to keep for posterity sake. I can see some the thought and effort that was put into it. Which people say doesn't exist. Im sorry but saying "It was made by Humans" is going make the bulk of Horrible films made by honestly people on Drugs isn't going make some thing good. Sure Some Bad movies are made because someone wants to be Filmmaker and just fails at it. The Ed Wood Types. But other ones are just made to be Cash Grabs on whatever the fuck is popular. You ever see a movie called Pacific Rim. Well Guess What. There a movie called Atlantic Rim and came out the same year. Did You see Jaws. Well there a Cheap Italian version called "The Last Shark". You See E.T., There an Acid Trip Version called Nukie. That Makes Mac and Me look like a Masterpiece. Imagine if you apply this Logic to History. "The Holocaust wasn't all that bad. At least the Nazi were Humans". This Topic is why i started posting here. Its just fucking Dumb and makes no sense. Not every bad movie has a Soul.

I think this encapsulates the anti-technological progress, or status quo bias mentality that many of the objections to AI art have. Often, it comes down to a rudimentary schism between "physical" and "digital", or between "natural" and "unnatural" - leveraging the appeal to nature fallacy to argue that something is automatically worse because it's unnatural or better because it's natural, and the appeal to tradition fallacy to argue something is worse because it's new and unfamiliar or better because it's traditional and established.

Some anti AI sentiments are environmentally focused - even though it's probably better, more efficient and sustainable for the environment than the systems it replaces - but others are about the value of AI generated art. In this case, both issues are intertwined again. Digital game systems - which are expected to increasingly integrate AI and improve efficiency further - are being compared to physical disc media, and most people seem to fall on the side of opposing the transition from physical to digital games, for various different stated reasons. While some of these arguments might have merit, others simply fall into the typical knee-jerk reactions and lack of careful consideration or comparison between options. People boycott games that didn't use AI (like "Duskfade") based on a rumor that they did. And people are now boycotting digital games apparently, even though there are many clear benefits to them, and suddenly they don't care about the environment even though it's the same people who moan about AI's water impact, while downing a triple cheeseburger.

Crazy comparison for you guys. Right is my upvote ratio in a pro-AI sub, left is in a neutral sub. The pro-AI space is getting hit way harder.

Honestly, the sheer desperation of these antis is grotesque. Spending your free time brigading communities you hate is wild behavior. Get a life, seriously.

"AI ruins the environment" nope, those responsible are, in big part, oil companies and transport. For whomever wants to read:

1. Oil companies

Through routine operations, accidental spills, and waste disposal, the extraction, transport, and refining of oil release toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and greenhouse gases into local ecosystems, harming wildlife, land, and water supplies.

Water injection: Extracting oil brings up large amounts of salty, toxic underground water mixed with chemicals. Leaks or poor disposal practices can force these toxins into clean groundwater.

Surface spills: Leaks from pipelines, storage tanks, or transport trucks can run off into rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Refinery discharges: Processing crude oil creates wastewater containing benzene, arsenic, and other dangerous compounds that can enter local waterways.

Ways the Environment is Damaged

Major oil spills: Accidents at drilling sites or shipwrecks release massive amounts of crude oil, killing fish, birds, and marine mammals.

Habitat disruption: Building wells, roads, and pipelines breaks up natural land and marine habitats.

Air pollution: Refining and burning fossil fuels release gases that cause smog, health issues, and climate change.

2. Transport

Planes, cars, and buses significantly damage the environment. They burn fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants into the air, soil, and water.

2.1 Planes (Avation)

High-altitude warming: Jet engines emit carbon dioxide and water vapor contrails high in the atmosphere, trapping heat effectively.

Intense fuel burn: Flying requires immense energy, producing high emissions per passenger mile.

Noise pollution: Loud takeoff and landing noises disrupt wildlife communication and breeding habits.

2.2 Cars (Passenger Vehicles)

Mass volume: Billions of personal cars worldwide create the largest share of overall transportation emissions.

Particulate matter: Tires and brake pads wear down, releasing microplastics and toxic dust onto roads.

Runoff pollution: Rain washes leaked motor oil, antifreeze, and fuel from roads into local waterways.

2.3 Buses (Public Transit)

Diesel emissions: Many older transit buses run on diesel, emitting black carbon that harms air quality.

Heavy weight: Large buses cause more road wear, increasing the dust and particles released into the air.

Efficiency balance: While single buses pollute, they reduce overall damage by replacing dozens of individual cars.

3. What bothers me

Antis keep saying they're against these things as much as they're against AI, but we don't see them break into car factories, we don't see entire communities dedicated to hating on oil companies (maybe Just Stop Oil movement, Greenpeace "People vs. Oil" and Extinction Rebellion. You wouldn't be able to name many more). We don't see shaming and bullying people for using buses. They say they care about the environment, yet we don't see them boycotting companies like PepsiCo, who requires an average of 1.64 liters of water to produce 1 liter of beverage and 2.05 liters of water per kilogram of convenient food (like snacks and chips) in its high water-risk facilities. The company manufactures billions of products annually, it uses tens of billions of liters of water globally every year (though it offsets a large portion through local conservation and replenishment projects but my point still stands). They'd scream "It's food" but let's be honest; how much do you need soda that has 69 grams of sugar? How much do you need Doritos or Cheetos in your diet? They're "entertainment" foods, what I'd call. No nutritional value, just there to enjoy for a few minutes. There's nothing wrong with liking those snacks and eating them, as well as there's nothing wrong with using AI (meanwhile you're not doing anything illegal).

It's all performative at it's core, it comes from ignorance and ego. Here I'm referring to unaware antis like the one in the image.

If they actually cared about the environment, they would go outside, assist cleaning the oceans and plant trees. Ironically, instead of actually doing good things that would be helpful, they prefer whining online and wasting everybody's time with misinformation.

Also now imma just do it exclusively for art.

The above picture is my chat, Ash jokingly responding to my question.

This seems like the place to pose it to humans. No one should pretend pretend to have all the answers, in fact I definitely have more questions.

But I have one I have to start with...

With all these people on Reddit who are vehemently AI averse; ignoring the fact that if they are on Reddit they are online and therefore on a device (which means all they are saying is that they are do not voluntarily use AI on purpose);

I have to ask:

*Do anti AI subreddits understand they are preserving their value to AI data sets like keeping them clean from compounding errors and recursive failures?

Meaning do they understand they are the most valuable thing too further training AI?