> So you’re saying this picture cant be copyrighted?

No, if I was saying that, I’d say “It’s not a sufficiently creative work and cannot be said to have an artist”. What I’m saying is that “you created an image with midjourney” (and the same goes for SD, whether base models or something more custom) does not appear to me (though, to be fair, I'm familiar with the broad concept of the test but not the details of any closely on-point case law – or even loosely analogous specific cases – when it comes to this threshold issue) to be a clearly sufficient basis for asserting either that it must or must not have an artist.

> Indeed, the artists are the ones who made the picture used in the training set.

If there is exactly one picture in the training set and all the model can do is reproduce it then, yes, the artist of that picture is trivially the artist of any of the (identical) pictures generated. But that’s not how actual midjourney works. IF there are many pictures in the training set, and all the model can do is reproduce one of them, but different prompts reproduce different images, then, again, the artist of that image is the artist of the identical result, but, again, Midjourney isn’t Google Images with an “I’m feeling lucky” button, so that’s not the right analysis, either.

That is a good outcome I think. You can still use it anywhere, you just can't "claim it"

Doesnt work if we can fairly find the artists of that picture - like the artists who made the pictures used in the training set.

Well, again, who are you going to attribute it too?

given a training image is good for about 1 byte of information, an image would have..... well over a million likely contributors.

Same as any art an artist comes up with, given all the things they have seen in their life leading up to the image.

Placing it in public domain seems like a easy way to stop it being hard core commercialized.

And honestly, given the crazy extensions on copyright laws, it seems pretty fair to do so.