Notwithstanding any comments and agreements in specific websites, it
appears that art generated by AIs such as Wombo, NightCafe, Artbreeder,
DALL*E, et multae ceterae, may not be copyrightable, according to an
article in The Hollywood Reporter [1].

This upholds a decision by the United States Copyright Office, making it
_effectively_ a nationwide ruling, and will certainly be influential,
though perhaps not definitive, internationally under the Berne Convention.

Both the specific ruling in this case and the original Copyright Office
decision cite the specific need for human intervention, which strongly
implies that if you take an AI-generated picture and make significant
changes to it, perhaps using tools such as Paint.Net or PhotoShop, the
result _would_ be copyrightable to the extent that your modifications can
be held to be an expression of human creativity. However, this is an are of
law which is ... complicated ... and if you find yourself in a position
where it's a real issue, the ONLY advice that I'm competent to give is
"find a lawyer with a specialization in copyright/intellectual property".

[1]
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

(Issues like this are part of the reason that when someone tells me that
the artwork accompanying an article is generated by an AI, I credit it in
the magazine to the submitter 'via «a distinguishing name for the AI»',
e.g., 'Jeff Zeitlin via Wombo'.)

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2022. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)