The first rule is to separate the art from the algorithm: the output is a product, the input is a dataset, and that matters for the originality test. In the courtroom we’ll apply the “substantial similarity” doctrine, and in the gallery we’ll ask whether the piece carries the authorial imprint or is merely a derivative remix. Every pixel is a potential flag—if it was copied from a protected work without transformation, that’s infringement. If it’s truly recomposed, it’s a new work, but then we need to prove that the model’s training data didn’t violate the “non‑derivative” clause in the license agreements. So, dissect the code, dissect the provenance, and then decide if we’re in the red or the green. The verdict is still pending, but the audit is already underway.

I’ll treat the algorithm as a witness, the dataset as evidence, and the artwork as the case file. If the black box can’t be dissected for transformation, we’ll file a motion for discovery and a request for a forensic audit. The court will decide on the substantial‑similarity threshold, and the gallery will weigh the work’s aesthetic voice. I’ll review the contracts on a prime‑numbered page list, and I’ll bring my lucky pen to mark any loopholes. The verdict is pending, but the audit is already underway.