Today, few, if any, in the art world would question that photography is an art form of its own. Then again, it doesn't mean that anyone who takes a photo can create interesting artistic images. The camera is just like the brush a tool. You still must have something interesting to express and convey to reach beyond the usual dozen images.

"You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.” ― Ansel Adams

The photographer Ansel Adams' quote that you don't just take a photograph but that behind each photograph lies a lifetime of knowledge and experience, it is a reasoning that you can transfer to creating AI images. To create an AI image you need to have a clear idea, you then need to translate your visual idea and articulate the image in your own words into something a machine can interpret. To me, that seems like quite a few cognitive and creative choices before you can even begin to create an image. Then there is a selection process and probably some fine-tuning of your text prompt before you are satisfied with the result. Perhaps your images are part of a series, then there is also a greater conceptual level or thought behind the images.

It is therefore a bizarre thought that AI images would not be considered art or protected by copyright, as some of the art world and the law in many countries claim. It sounds like an old outdated view of art and a territorial thinking, just like when photography was introduced and anyone could suddenly depict reality without being a trained artist. If you pick up your mobile phone and take a selfie and post it on the internet, your photograph is protected by copyright. It is a mechanical, probably AI-assisted image, without much originality or idea behind it, but it still has greater copyright protection and is considered more creative than a well thought out and conceptual AI image. As I said, it's absurd.