So right now, as far as my knowledge goes, lawyers are pushing for a completely binary system where generative AI will be completely in the public domain, or humans made it, leaving it completely copyrighted (this one is valid). This leaves deep promoters and brokers, e.g, indie creators, totally unprotected from corporate scraping or unable to accomplish something for a large project, while failing to hold low-effort spammers accountable.

This suggestion aims to treat AI assets using basic human property and adoption logic: if you claim the work, you take the responsibility, which means you are on the hook if your asset infringes on something. If you leave it untagged, it drops to the public domain.

So here is what we have so far

Tier 1: An integrated human fashion allowing for full copyright

This tier protects direct human execution, labor, and creative projects. A work is Tier 1 through three specific pathways:

1. The Tool/Direct Input Path: The human uses the machine as a tool using non-text, high-effort inputs (sketches, custom depth maps, 3D structural layouts). The AI is only the brush to make the final result, leaving the work fully protected.
2. The Integrated Project Path: The AI assets are used as building blocks inside a larger, active, human-directed project (a video game, graphic novel, indie film, or hobby project meant for publication). This makes the entire project and the assets inside it protected from being ripped.
3. The Altered Image Path: If you take a raw AI image and heavily modify or composite it manually, the altered version becomes a completely separate entity that graduates into Tier 1; you fully own and can monetize this modified version.

Tier 2: The Distinct Tier (No Direct Monetization)

This is the "adoptive" middle ground for standalone generations that are not human-adjusted or inputted, and not part of a project guided by a human. This recognizes deep prompting and curation without giving an unfair commercial monopoly over raw machine outputs (for speed or pure just for fun, we compromise for direct payment, please upgrade to tier 1).

• Requirements: The output must pass a visual test proving it is a unique, distinct expression (not a copycat of an already existing work). The user must actively claim responsibility by tagging the work at the moment of creation with a cryptographic metadata signature linked to a persistent identifier or pseudonym, e.g., a username.
• The Rules: The prompter gets legal distribution control (platform-level takedown rights) to stop people or corporations from copy-pasting, scraping, or re-uploading their child. However, you cannot directly sell or monetize the raw asset as is. If you want to sell it, you must upgrade it to Tier 1 by altering it or integrating it into a project.

Tier 3: The Public Domain Filter

This acts as a tier to protect the open internet from data-squatting, copyright trolls, and low-effort spam.

• Requirements: Simple text prompts, generic mathematical outputs, or automated algorithmic spam.
• The Auto-Drop Rule: Any AI generation left unsigned or untagged by a user instantly drops here by default. If you don't actively put your name on it and take "adoptive responsibility," society considers it abandoned. Anyone can copy, share, remix, or commercially exploit these assets

Yes, consumer, we understand that this may not be satisfactory, but this is what we have come up with due to displeasure with the current legal battle ongoing. But if you have your own complaints, please do show.

This is not to deny the fact that the companies that made AI did incredibly unethical things, such as scalping and prompters that compare their generations to artists, are not in the right because they aren't AI is a tool they didn't pour in the hours that artists have done and for sure they can not just compare themselves to artists and say they also put in effort yes it is quicker but it doesn't have the exact amount of deadication to it not to be disrespectful prompting is inheretly easier coming up with an idea sure is difficult but prompting it is not.

That's my piece, what you lot think about this legal thing. See your replies soon, consumer.