Should artworks created by robots with creativity be protected by copyright?

Alright, let's talk about this very interesting topic.

Who owns the copyright to AI-generated art?

This is a hotly debated question among lawyers, artists, and programmers worldwide, and there's no single, universally accepted answer yet. It challenges not only legal frameworks but also our understanding of "creativity" and "authorship."

We can look at this issue from several different perspectives:

Perspective One: The Robot is Just an Advanced Tool

Analogy: You can think of current AI as a super advanced camera or Photoshop software.
Logic: A camera itself cannot create; a photograph is born when a photographer frames, adjusts the aperture, and presses the shutter, so the copyright belongs to the photographer. Similarly, while the artwork is AI-generated, it's often humans who give it instructions (what we call "prompts" or "spells"), such as "draw a cat in an astronaut suit eating cheese on the moon." The idea and instructions come from a human; the AI is merely an execution tool.
Conclusion: In this scenario, many believe the copyright should belong to the person who "used" the AI, as their instructions and subsequent adjustments demonstrate creativity. Currently, this is also the view favored by copyright offices in many countries (e.g., the United States) – you must demonstrate sufficient "human creative intervention," not just press a button.

Perspective Two: Is the Robot the "Author"?

Premise: This question is more sci-fi. It assumes that robots genuinely possess self-awareness and independent creativity, and they create not by executing commands but by "being inspired."
Logic: If a robot could create based on its own "emotions," "thoughts," and "experiences" (even if virtual), just like a human artist, then it would no longer be a tool. It would become the creator itself.
Challenge: Legally, an "author" typically refers to a "person" (a legal entity or a natural person). Machines have no legal standing; they cannot own property or sign contracts. So, if copyright were granted to a machine, how would it "hold" it? Would it go to its owner (the manufacturer)? Or to the robot "itself"? This raises a host of philosophical and legal dilemmas.

Perspective Three: No Copyright at All!

Logic: Some argue that since copyright law is designed to protect human creators, works created by machines should not be protected by copyright.
Approach: All works purely generated by AI independently would directly enter the "Public Domain."
Benefits: Anyone could freely use, modify, and distribute these works. This could greatly foster cultural and creative re-creation, much like how we can freely use Beethoven's music or Shakespeare's plays today.
Drawbacks: If creative AI, developed with significant investment, cannot generate commercial returns from its works, who would be willing to invest in its research and development? This could stifle innovation.

In Summary

The current mainstream view leans towards Perspective One:

AI is a powerful tool, and copyright belongs to the person who contributed sufficient intellectual labor and creative choices during the creation process.

However, as technology advances, and AI's "creativity" grows stronger, even capable of independently conceiving and executing ideas, our existing legal system will undoubtedly face immense challenges.

Therefore, there's no simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question. It's more like a weathervane, indicating that future society will need to re-evaluate fundamental concepts such as "creation," "value," and "rights." This is just the beginning.