It's not art, it's created by a machine

It cannot be considered art as you only use a machine to create the image. No, I'm not talking about AI art, but about photography. When photography was introduced as a way of depicting reality, there was a lot of skepticism within the art world against calling it art. It was just a mechanical reproduction of reality, the human intervention was minimal, unlike the real art like sculpture and painting where the human presence was great. Of course, artists could use the camera to capture a subject, which they could then paint, but to call it art was going too far.

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 It sounds like an old outdated view of art and a territorial thinking, just like when photography was introduced and anyone could suddenly depict reality without being a trained artist.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.

"There will always be those who look only at technique, who ask 'how' while others of a more curious nature will ask 'why'. Personally, I have always preferred inspiration to information.” – Man Ray artist and photographer.