yes except the copyright system was created without ai in mind. ai would break the system. like i said, companies could with a super computer generate so much art that it would just flood the system with copyrights. a human artist could end up accidentally infringing all the time and thereby freezing their capacity to create original works. then there are also issues with likeness. if ai creates a human face, do real humans with that face get a royalty? how much alike to that face would it need to be? how come celebrity lookalikes don't get royalties? some of them are 99% alike.

is the art that it produces based on the art that you created?

That entirely misses the point here though. Say i'm writing a paper and need to back up a statement with math. The equations I derive my equations from were published in someone else's work, and I used them. I did all the math, drew my conclusions, and wrote the paper. Does the person who developed the equations that everything I did is based on deserve credit, since I didn't use their equations explicitly?

Or better yet, in your example, I take your AI code and feed it straight into and AI framework to optimize it. After 24 hours, it has made minor improvements. I market both the AI that optimized the code, as well as the code itself as a "product", without providing you credit, or in this case, profits from the copyright that I place on the work.

Unless you also generate 100% of the training set yourself, credit must be granted to those that you used the work of. It's quite honestly mind-boggling that after decades of DMCA in commercial ventures and citation policies in academia that this isn't the conclusion that everyone comes to. (I do not necessarily endorse the causes above whole-heartedly, especially DMCA. However, trying to pretend them away is silly, and should be treated as such)

Did you created the dataset it was trained on?