Has there been any examples of what you've described? The two nearly-identical images, one produced by human and one produced by AI with explicit direction, as opposed to 4 generated close-enough ones?

Also, I think the argument is that the actions of one using AI to create art is closer to what an Art Director does, rather then what an artist does. You can direct a person or a computer with directions, but that doesn't mean you are the one putting pen to paper, so to speak.

Terminator vs Judge Dredd, anyone?

here's a different one with a less click-baity title

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

It may have, the article I posted was from last week. I did a quick google search of the article title and reddit, but didn't see anything other than the one about watermarking. There's a new one posted today from cartoonbrew, in case that counts https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

Here's what was said about the difference between photography and AI art generation :

'The office argued that, unlike a photographer, Midjourney users have
very limited control of the final images. Photographers manipulate
framing, lighting, subject, exposure time, depth of field, composition,
and more when creating a photograph. According to USCO, “The process by
which a Midjourney user obtains an ultimate satisfactory image through
the tool is not the same as that of a human artist, writer, or
photographer… the initial prompt by a user generates four different
images based on Midjourney’s training data. While additional prompts
applied to one of these initial images can influence the subsequent
images, the process is not controlled by the user because it is not
possible to predict what Midjourney will create ahead of time.'

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

according to the copyright office, it's different because photographers have a direct creative input into the image produced.

'The office argued that, unlike a photographer, Midjourney users have
very limited control of the final images. Photographers manipulate
framing, lighting, subject, exposure time, depth of field, composition,
and more when creating a photograph. According to USCO, “The process by
which a Midjourney user obtains an ultimate satisfactory image through
the tool is not the same as that of a human artist, writer, or
photographer… the initial prompt by a user generates four different
images based on Midjourney’s training data. While additional prompts
applied to one of these initial images can influence the subsequent
images, the process is not controlled by the user because it is not
possible to predict what Midjourney will create ahead of time.'

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

using AI to generate art seems closer to Art Direction, rather than the creation of art itself

would you prefer CartoonBrew? https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

So onwards to Futurama with the Judgebots?

No reason why someone wouldn't be able to figure that out, but I wonder what would be the retaliation to that.

It all is coming back to Randy Marsh and Mickey Mouse.